Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

NEW WRIT.

For the County of Glamorgan (Llandaff and Barry Division), in the room of Patrick Munro, Esquire, deceased.—[Mr. James Stuart.]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL WAR EFFORT.

WORKERS' HOSTELS.

Miss Cazalet: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider placing the control of all hostels for war workers under one organisation?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): When the National Service Hostels Corporation, Limited, was set up by me a year ago to manage hostels provided at Government expense for transferred war workers, it was agreed that for reasons of practical convenience the Corporation should not be asked to manage hostels at Royal Ordnance Factories, which would continue to be managed under arrangements made by the Ministry of Supply, or hostels for agricultural workers and others housed in small and scattered units. No change in that policy is at present contemplated.

Miss Cazalet: Does not my right hon. Friend think that it would make for greater economy if they were amalgamated?

Mr. Bevin: It may at a later date, but when we are building up a new machine operating nearly 100,000 beds under the National Hostels Corporation I do not want to take steps that would overload it until it gets into working order.

Miss Cazalet: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has come to any decision as to the post-war use of the Royal Ordnance factories and other hostels established in connection with the war effort?

Mr. Bevin: This is a matter of general Government policy. No decision has yet been reached.

Miss Cazalet: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that these hostels will be retained for social and educational purposes by the Government after the war?

Mr. Bevin: If I may express a personal opinion, without stating Government policy, it is that they ought to be retained, and the Government are considering the matter from that aspect.

MOBILE WOMEN WORKERS.

Mr. Mainwaring: asked the Minister of Labour what complaints he has had with regard to the operations of tribunals dealing with the mobile class of young women and their failure to give adequate consideration to domestic circumstances; and whether he is prepared to amend present instructions and provide facilities for all complaining parties to appeal against the decisions of the tribunals?

Mr. Bevin: I am inquiring into the three cases forwarded to the Ministry by my hon. Friend and will communicate with him about them as soon as possible. I would, however, point out that in two of the cases the reference is to the procedure before the hardship committees. This procedure is statutory, with certain rights of appeal to the umpire, and I have no power to alter it. In the other case it is stated that the woman concerned was unable for reasons of health to continue in a job to which she had been directed, but it is not stated whether her case went before a tribunal or with what result.

Mr. Mainwaring: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in each of the cases that appeared before the hardship committee it was specifically laid down that no right of appeal existed? If, therefore, when he is investigating the cases he finds that the suggestion of hardship and under-estimation of tragic domestic circumstances is supported, will he take steps to see that a right of appeal exists?

Mr. Bevin: The right of appeal is clearly statutory; it does exist.

Mr. Mainwaring: The form upon which the decision of the hardship committee is communicated to the individual states that no right of appeal is allowed.

Mr. Bevin: I will look into that.

Mr. Mainwaring: In view of the unsatisfactory replies made by the Minister in regard to this matter, I beg to give notice that I shall raise it on the Adjournment at a convenient date.

WOMEN AND GIRLS, DURHAM COUNTY.

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: asked the Minister of Labour the number of women and girls who have been placed in industry, since 1939, in the administrative county of Durham; and the number that have been transferred out of this county to other areas for industrial purposes during the same period?

Mr. Bevin: I will communicate with my hon. Friend.

UNEMPLOYED WORKERS (REHABILITATION).

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Minister of Labour how many persons now registered as unemployed are partially disabled by industrial accident and disease; and whether he is taking steps to provide facilities for rehabilitation and retaining of these workers?

Mr. Bevin: I have no statistics showing how many persons registered as unemployed are partially disabled by industrial accident or disease. Certain facilities for the training of such persons for new occupations are available under the interim scheme instituted last year. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the leaflet on this scheme.

Mr. Griffiths: Is it the intention of the Minister at any stage to take steps to discover how many such men are in the country, in view of the fact that it may be necessary to use their labour?

Mr. Bevin: I think that the best way would be, if hon. Members know these ceses and think that they are capable of being brought back to useful employment by rehabilitation, that they should, instead of asking me to get a lot of statistics, forward cases to me, and I will look into them very quickly. I think that that is the quickest way of dealing with them.

SICKNESS (LOSS OF TIME).

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Labour whether the amount of time lost by sickness is on the increase among industrial workers; and whether he can

indicate the main steps taken to deal with the problem?

Mr. Bevin: Statistics on the point are not available. The main special steps taken by my Department under war conditions are to help in securing, in co-operation with the appropriate authorities, the satisfactory housing of transferred workers in particular, adequate feeding facilities, and good transport conditions, coupled with improved arrangements for medical and nursing attention for those who are sick and some extension of medical supervision in the factories themselves, so far as the available supply of doctors permits. Improved welfare supervision also has a bearing on the problem.

Sir Herbert Williams: Would it be possible for my right hon. Friend to get some information from the Minister of Health on this subject based on the National Health Insurance returns?

Mr. Bevin: It would be possible, but in view of the necessity of keeping down Government staffs as low as possible we do not want too much collection of statistics.

MINES (LOSS OF OUTPUT).

Mr. Foster: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered amending the Essential Work (Coal Mining Industry) Order in such a way as would enable legal proceedings to be taken against the employers in the same way as is taken against the workmen for loss of output?

Mr. Bevin: The provisions affecting workers in the Essential Work Order, and in particular those relating to absenteeism apply to all grades of employees, including the managers, and among those who may report cases of alleged absenteeism to the National Service Officer is the pit production committee. It does not appear, therefore, that there is anything more I could do by way of amendment of the Order in this respect. Efficiency of management is a matter that cannot be brought within the scope of the Order and must be dealt with in another way.

Mr. Foster: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that under this Order £645,000 has been paid out to provide a guaranteed wage and that this represents a loss of from 250,000 to 300,000 shifts,


which means a considerable loss of output? Cannot something be done to amend the Order so as to deal with owners who are responsible?

Mr. Bevin: I have explained that you cannot very well deal with the management under this Order. I appreciate he point that my hon. Friend makes, but steps have to be taken in another direction to overcome it.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is a strong feeling that he is prosecuting the workmen for absenteeism but is not prosecuting the managements?

Mr. Bevin: My hon. Friend is wrong. Managers have been prosecuted for violations of the Order.

Mr. Davies: But none have been sent to prison like the workmen.

COTTON INDUSTRY (HOURS OF WORK, JUVENILES).

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: asked the Minister of Labour whether he can now see his way to revise the Order extending the hours of juveniles in the cotton industry?

Mr. Bevin: This matter is under constant review, but the situation in the cotton spinning mills at the moment is such that I cannot hold out any hope of an early cancellation of this Order. Care will be taken, however, to limit the actual operation of the Order to cases where this is essential for war requirements.

Mr. Lindsay: This question has been under review for some time. Does my right hon. Friend think that the employment of these juveniles for longer hours is really vital to the war effort?

Mr. Bevin: I should not have agreed to it if it were not. I hated doing it.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any medical reports as to the health of these juveniles, and will he keep in view medical reports about their health?

Mr. Bevin: I keep constantly in touch with the authorities, and I have had no adverse report up to now. I am watching the matter carefully.

Mr. Thorne: I started work at seven, and look at my health.

BOYS (WAGES).

Sir Charles Edwards: asked the Minister of Labour the average wage of boys in Government and other munition factories, ages 14 to 16 and 16 to 18, respectively?

Mr. Bevin: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The time rates of wages for boys employed in the Ministry of Supply establishments, including Royal Ordnance factories, are for a 47-hour week as follow:


Age
London
Elsewhere




s.
d.
s.
d.


14–15
…
16
0
15
6


15–16
…
18
6
18
0


16–17
…
22
0
21
6


17–18
…
26
0
25
6


18–19
…
37
0
36
0

With regard to other munition factories, particulars of the average weekly earnings in July, 1941, of youths and boys under 21 years of age in manufacturing industries generally, including those which are largely or partly engaged on munitions work, were given in the Ministry of Labour "Gazettes" for November and December, copies of which have been placed in the Library. Separate figures are not available as regards boys aged 14 to 16 or 16 to 18 years.

WOMEN (CARE OF CHILDREN).

Mr. Oldfield: asked the Minister of Labour what percentage of women of registration age who have children under 14 years of age living with them are now in full-time employment?

Mr. Bevin: I have no statistics enabling me to give this information. In the classes recently registered of women born in 1904–8 inclusive approximately 15 per cent. of married women with children were in full-time paid employment at the time of registration.

HAIRDRESSERS.

Mr. Hannah: asked the Minister of Labour whether has attention has been drawn to the inconvenience felt by workers from the scarcity of hairdressers still in business; and can he arrange for some relief?

Mr. Bevin: I have withdrawn women from hairdressing only in accordance with the terms agreed with the Central Advisory Panel, on which hairdressing is represented. Male hairdressers who are liable under the National Service Acts may have their calling up deferred on application to the district man-power boards in appropriate cases.

Mr. Thorne: Who are the more important, hairdressers or sweeps? Sweeps have been called up.

Sir H. Williams: Has my right hon. Friend considered the recent report of a committee on the risk of infestation among those in the Services? Is he bearing that in mind?

Oral Answers to Questions — MILITARY TRAINING ACT, 1939.

Mr. Kennedy: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has any statement to make with regard to the continuance of the Military Training Act?

Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir: The Military Training Act, which was passed in May, 1939, was to remain in force for three years and then expire subject to a provision whereby, upon an Address by each House of Parliament, an Order in Council might be made continuing its operation for a year at a time. On the outbreak of war, it was superseded by the National Service (Armed Forces) Act but was not repealed. The Government have considered whether steps should be taken to prolong the Act for a further period but have decided against this course. The Act would, in any event, be inoperative for the duration of the war and it is scarcely possible now to anticipate the provisions of this nature that will be required after the war. It is therefore proposed to allow the Act to expire on 26th May next and so leave a clear field for the enactment, at a later date, of such legislation as circumstances may show to be desirable.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

PRE-SERVICE TRAINING UNITS.

Mr. Lindsay: asked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the fact that pre-service training units recruit at different ages and cover much common ground between the ages of 14 and 16, he will take the initiative in

giving central guidance, in order to preserve the balance of continued education, technical instruction and pre-service training?

The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Butler): In the advice given to local education authorities in Circular 1577 particular attention was drawn in paragraph 14 to the needs of the age group 14–16 to which my hon. Friend refers. I am keeping this question under review.

Mr. Lindsay: Is it the policy of the Government to have pre-service training for the whole of those between 14 and 18 years of age, because at the present time, as he knows, there are some half million young people in those units and there is a shortage of places and would it not be better to concentrate on the years 16 to 18?

Mr. Butler: The age differs according to the unit into which the boy or girl goes. As my hon. Friend knows, in the case of the cadets the age is slightly younger than in the case of the A.T.C.

CHURCH SERVICES, LEWES (SCHOOL-TIME ATTENDANCE).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he has now secured further information regarding the circumstances and legality of a Sussex education committee assembling certain scholars during school-time in a church to be addressed by local ministers or clergy; and whether any other education committee has adopted a similar practice?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir: I am informed that the children of the Mountfield Road Council School, Lewes, attend a religious service in church on one morning per week, but no decision to introduce a similar practice at the other council school in the town has yet been taken. The service is undenominational in character and has been arranged in co-operation with the Church of England and the Free Church bodies of the area. Parents were circularised beforehand by the local education authority and their consent invited; the parents of only two children have dissented and their children attend at school instead of the church. The services are conducted by the clergyman and minister and the attendance of teachers is voluntary. Registers are marked at the


school at 9.45 a.m. I am advised that there is nothing in the Education Acts to preclude undenominational religious' instruction or observance for council school children being conducted elsewhere than on the school premises. As regards the last part of the Question, I am not aware that any other local education authority has adopted this arrangement.

Mr. Sorensen: Whilst thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that this matter involves a question of national and general educational importance going beyond the local area, and has he taken steps to consult with any prominent national educational bodies on the principle involved? Further, is he aware that I have raised this matter particularly from that standpoint and not because of any local interest in the town?

Mr. Butler: I am sure the hon. Member would be animated by the motives he has mentioned in raising the matter. I am watching it, because it is an exceptional practice, and I shall continue to do so.

Mr. Hannah: May not the great capital of noble Sussex, the cradle of this House, be permitted to manage her own affairs?

TEACHERS AND YOUTH LEADERS (TRAINING).

Mr. Mander: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he will consider the advisability of including representatives of headmasters and headmistresses on the committee appointed to inquire into the recruitment and training of teachers and youth leaders?

Mr. Butler: I considered, when appointing the committee, the question of making it representative of all the interests concerned, and I decided that it would be better to have a small committee which would receive evidence from, and freely consult, headmasters, headmistresses and others who are engaged directly or indirectly in the training of teachers.

Mr. Mander: In view of the great importance of including teachers of this grade, who have a strong desire to be represented, will the right hon. Gentleman not give this matter close consideration?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir, because I deliberately took the step of not appointing the committee upon a representative basis It is a committee composed of people exceptionally well qualified for the task, and I can assure my hon. Friend that they will pay attention to any representations made to them by any headmasters or head mistresses.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

NURSING SERVICE.

Mr. Norman Bower: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the difficulties at present being experienced by district nursing associations owing to the shortage of Queen's Nurses and the need for securing the utmost possible degree of co-ordination between the various types of nursing services, he will allow Civil Defence nurses, who are at present not fully employed, to supplement the work of the district nursing associations?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Ernest Brown): As my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, arrangements are being made for the release for service elsewhere of approximately one-third of the whole-time nursing personnel at first-aid posts. I will consider the suggestion of my hon. Friend in connection with these releases.

TUBERCULOSIS.

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Health whether he can state the number of cases of tuberculosis reported for the first four months of this year as compared with the corresponding period of 1939; whether he will give separate figures for Wales, and what steps are being taken to prevent an increase?

Mr. E. Brown: Provisional figures show that during the first 16 weeks of this year the number of cases notified as tuberculosis (but not all necessarily confirmed as such) was 15,525 in England and 1,193 in Wales. The corresponding figures for the first 16 weeks of 1939 were 15,120 and 1,244 respectively. In answer to the last part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to his similar Question on 12th February last. I understand that an interim report on the investigation by the Medical Research Council to which I then alluded may be expected in the near future.

Mr. Griffiths: What steps are being taken to deal with the growing list of people waiting for admission to sanatoria in various parts of the country?

Mr. Brown: We have released more beds, and we are taking urgent steps to deal with the shortage of staff in certain areas, which is really the key of the problem.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONERS.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Health whether he has considered making special financial provision for old age pensioners who have to enter institutions and who have rent or other financial obligations which they wish to continue or settle?

Mr. E. Brown: The general rule is that an old age pensioner who has become an inmate of an institution for the purpose of obtaining medical or surgical treatment continues to draw his pension so as to enable him to pay his rent and meet other financial obligations, and I am informed by the Assistance Board that regard is had to these obligations in determining how long a supplementary pension should be paid. If my hon. Friend has any particular case in mind I shall be pleased to make inquiries and to inform him of the result.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is it not a fact that the Assistance Board are operating the 14 days' rule in these cases and will not extend beyond the 14 days?

Mr. Brown: If my hon. Friend has any evidence of that perhaps he will let me have it, and I will pass it on to the Assistance Board and let him know the result.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING, LONDON.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the Minister of Health whether he will review the position in certain Metropolitan areas where housing accommodation is urgently needed while at the same time many empty houses are held in reserve by the local authority upon instructions of his Department?

Mr. E. Brown: I can assure my hon. Friend that the amount of accommodation held in reserve is under continuous review in the light of the special circumstances of each district, and has in fact been substantially reduced in recent months. I

am most anxious that housing accommodation shall be used to the best advantage and shall be glad to investigate the conditions in any area which my hon. Friend may bring to my notice. He will, I am sure, appreciate that local authorities must be in a position to rehouse people rapidly should heavy raids recur.

Mr. Morrison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this question is causing more concern among people in certain areas than almost any other factor in connection with the war, and if I send him some specific instances, will he lock into them?

Mr. Brown: I shall be most happy to do sc, and I shall be happy to send to my hon. Friend figures, which for obvious reasons I cannot publish, from which he will see that not only has the question been under review, but that action has been taken and that many fewer places are held in reserve.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIDOWS' AND ORPHANS' PENSIONS (PUBLIC ASSISTANCE).

Colonel Carver: asked the Minister of Health how many widows in receipt of widows' and orphans' pensions under the Widows,' Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Acts are in receipt of public assistance at the present time?

Mr. E. Brown: I regret that this information is not available.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: asked the Minister of Pensions whether, in the event of a member of the Forces being killed in action who had joined the Forces from the Civil Service and whose Service pay had been augmented to bring it up to the Civil Service rate, his widow's pension would be at the ordinary Service rate or whether a higher pension would be paid by reason of the deceased man's service in the Civil Service?

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): The widow of a civil servant who is killed in action as a member of the Armed Forces receives the same rate of pension as the widow of any other member of the same rank.

Sir A. Southby: Will the Minister answer the last part of my Question, which is whether any augmented pension is paid to the widow by reason of her husband's previous service in the Civil Service?

Sir W. Womersley: I must have notice of that matter.

Sir A. Southby: May I point out that it is the last part of my original Question, and the Minister has therefore had the notice? May I have an answer?

Sir W. Womersley: I have given the answer that, so far as my Department are concerned, we pay the same pension to a widow of a civil servant as we do to the widow of anyone else.

Sir A. Southby: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment at an early opportunity.

Major Milner: asked the Minister of Pensions the number of applications received by the War Service Grants Advisory Committee to the latest convenient date, distinguishing between applications from officers, men and members of the Women's Services; and indicating the number of cases in which grants have been made and the average amount granted?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions (Mr. Paling): The total number of applications received by the War Service Grants Division of the Ministry is 732,749, made up as follows: 

Officers and nurses
3,107


Other ranks (men)
727,320


Women's Auxiliary Forces
2,322


In the first category the grants made number 1,187, in the second 584,417, and in the last 595. The average amount of the grant is 13s. 2d.

Major Milner: While thanking my hon. Friend for those figures, which are rather surprising, may I ask him whether these applications are on the increase or the decrease?

Mr. Paling: They are decreasing slightly.

Major Milner: asked the Minister of Pensions how many pensions appeal tribunals are now sitting in respect of cases arising out of the last war; whether

he can give the number of cases of refusal of pension during the present war; and whether he is now prepared to set up a minimum number of tribunals to deal with appeals arising therefrom?

Sir W. Womersley: There is now no whole-time tribunal sitting to deal with Great War cases. Two part-time tribunals in Great Britain—one covering England and Wales and the other Scotland—meet as required. I regret that it would not be in the national interest to give the figures requested in the second part of the Question, and with regard to the last part of the Question I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) on 14th May.

Major Milner: Would the Minister say why it is not in the national interest to give the number of pensions which have been reduced, and whether he is aware that the demand for pensions appeal tribunals is rising and must be met at a very early date?

Mr. Silverman: Has the Minister given any consideration to the proposition, which was made to him some time ago upon an Adjournment Debate, and can he say what his attitude is towards it?

Major Milner: Is the Minister aware that there is considerable controversy as as to whether that proposal is likely to commend itself to those concerned?

Sir W. Womersley: My reply to the hon. Member is that this matter is still under consideration and that we are consulting those most concerned in this matter, who represent the Service men. In reply to the Question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I am sorry that he was unable to attend the last meeting of the Advisory Committee, where I stated I was calling a special meeting of that Committee to deal with the very question he has just raised.

Colonel Carver: asked the Minister of Pensions the number of applications by Service men invalided from the Army which have been refused to date; and what proportion of them were in respect of tuberculosis, bronchitis, rheumatism and heart disease, respectively?

Sir W. Womersley: It would not be in the public interest to give the figure asked for in the first part of the Question;


as regards the second part of the Question, the proportions were 4.7 per cent., 10.4 per cent., 2 per cent. and 5.7 per cent.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA (BY-ELECTIONS).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for India the number of by-elections that have taken place in India during the past two years, the respective candidates and their parties, and the number of votes polled by each, and how many members of the Orissa Provincial Assembly and others were arrested or detained preceding the recent by-election?

The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): I will let the hon. Member have the information as to the numbers of by-elections as soon as it can be collated from the various Provincial Gazettes. The other information asked for, relating as it does to the domestic affairs of autonomous Provinces, is not within my knowledge and I hesitate at the present juncture to burden Provincial Governments with the task of extracting and reporting it.

Mr. Sorensen: When is the right hon. Gentleman likely to receive information regarding the first part of my Question; and can he say offhand whether these by-election results indicate the general conviction and opinion of the electorate in India?

Mr. Amery: I cannot give a definite answer to either part of that Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE.

CADET CORPS.

Mr. Lindsay: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Civil Defence Cadet Corps are now in existence; and what steps he is taking actively to promote them?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I am aware of six bodies of this kind. Two of these were given official encouragement, but, since then, arrangements have been concluded with the Admiralty, the War Office and the Air Ministry whereby members of the Sea Cadet Corps, the Army Cadet Force and Junior Training Corps, and the Air Training Corps, are

encouraged to undertake part-time Civil Defence duty, and this is felt to be preferable to the formation of further bodies which might compete with those organisations in the matter of recruitment.

Mr. Lindsay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is all wrong, that there are at least 40 per cent. of these young people in no organisation, that there is no competition with the other three bodies and that here is an opportunity for a first-class organisation growing up all over the country? Will he reconsider his answer?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir, I do not think that would be wise. The circumstances of Civil Defence are very different from those of the Service Departments, which have been very co-operative. It would involve needless overlapping and competition if I were to start a fourth Cadet Corps. I think the arrangements we have made are the best way of handling the problem.

Mr. Lindsay: Is the Minister aware that he is damming up the enthusiasm of hundreds of thousands of young people, who are readily forming themselves into these corps and are drilling and carrying on practical Civil Defence work? There is no competition. We want, not one youth organisation in this country, but half-a-dozen. What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by his answer?

Mr. Morrison: I have said what I mean, and I cannot say more than that.

Sir Percy Harris: Is the Minister not aware that a great number of lads in London have been helping Civil Defence units and that they feel rather disheartened at having to divert their energies to other organisations?

Mr. Morrison: I have not said that my Department will not allow lads to go into Civil Defence. On the contrary, these lads come in. The question is whether we should run a national drive to set up a national organisation for a limited purpose. Most of the work of National Defence must be done by adult persons, and we have not the carry-over which the Service Departments have in their organisations. I am not refusing to accept the services of young people, but I do not think it will be wise to set up a further organisation competitive with the Service Departments.

Mr. Lindsay: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter again at an early opportunity.

FRIENDLY AUSTRIANS AND GERMANS.

Mr. Mander: asked the Home Secretary whether he will give an assurance that friendly Austrians in this country are, at least, as well treated as friendly neutrals in respect of exemption from curfew, duty to notify any change of address, possession of bicycles, motor vehicles and similar matters?

Mr. H. Morrison: As I have previously explained to my hon. Friend, exemption from the special restrictions applicable to aliens of enemy nationality is granted to Austrians who satisfy me that they are wholeheartedly sympathetic with the Allied cause and willing to assist in our war effort. Such exemption places them in the same position as friendly neutrals in respect of the matters mentioned in the Question.

Mr. Manders: Is the Minister aware that it does not always work out in practice on those lines? Will he be good enough to give the widest publicity to the statement which he has just made?

Mr. Morrison: I will do my best. If there are any individual cases I shall be happy to look into them.

Miss Eleanor Rathbone: Will the Minister extend this also to friendly Germans who are known to be equally reliable?

Mr. Morrison: I think so, Sir. They are in the same category.

NATIONAL FIRE SERVICE.

Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the Home Secretary whether he will give an assurance that, in sending National Fire Service representatives to India and elsewhere for training and administrative purposes, the greatest care for their selection for such responsible tasks will be taken; and whether he has, or will, issue instructions accordingly?

Mr. H. Morrison: Yes, Sir; the utmost care is and will continue to be exercised in making such selections.

Sir J. Lucas: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his answer, may I ask whether he is aware that, out of four successful candidates in one area, two were

officers who had been demoted, one twice, and one had failed to qualify? Will he make these facts the basis of inquiry in order that there should not be in the N.F.S. the Army practice of getting rid in this way of undesirable and inefficient personnel?

Mr. Morrison: The last point put by the hon. and gallant Member is unfair and untrue in its implication. If there are any cases of the selection of inefficient personnel, I shall be glad to look into them. Naturally, we have to take a number of factors into account.

Sir Stanley Reed: Will the Minister give consideration, in regard to Indians, to the fact that the best is only just good enough, because these men are subject to very strict scrutiny, and their reputation depends very much upon whether they do their duty or not?

Mr. Morrison: I am keeping that point in mind. I am naturally anxious to give what help I can to India, but I must consider the needs of this country too.

Sir J. Lucas: If I give names to the right hon. Gentleman, will he make inquiry?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

WAR LOSSES (CHANNEL ISLAND REFUGEES).

Sir William Davison: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the hard case of refugees from the Channel Islands, who have escaped to this country, leaving all their possessions behind them and have to equip themselves and their new homes at the greatly increased prices now prevailing; and whether he will consider allowing these British subjects to have the benefit of the compensation provided under the War Damage Act for loss of property by enemy action?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): The War Damage Act does not extend to the Channel Islands, nor are losses of the kind referred to in the Question within the definition of war damage as laid down in the Act; and my right hon. Friend regrets that he cannot contemplate its extension in the manner suggested.

Sir W. Davison: Have the Government considered whether anything can be done to alleviate the sufferings of these citizens of ours, many of whom are penniless and, through no fault of their own, are refugees in this country? Can something not be done to make them entitled to compensation for the loss of their property which they have had to leave behind them in the Channel Islands?

Captain Crookshank: Compensation for property is another question. It is, of course, true that persons evacuated from the Channel Islands to this country are eligible for assistance under the war-time scheme for the prevention and relief of distress, just as are inhabitants of this country.

SECURITIES (MARKETING).

Sir Irving Albery: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any announcement to make with regard to the marketing of securities?

Captain Crookshank: Yes, Sir. Cases have arisen which show that it is desirable to supplement the existing control over the capital market by requiring the consent of the Treasury to the public marketing of new securities and of existing securities for which permission to deal has not already been given. The Committee of the London Stock Exchange and the Council of Associated Stock Exchanges have agreed that no quotation or permission to deal will be given by the Exchanges in respect of any securities for which permission to deal has not already been granted, except with the consent of the Treasury, and subject to any conditions which the Treasury may attach to such consent. All applications should continue to be addressed to the Stock Exchanges in the first instance, and the Exchanges will refer them as necessary to the Treasury for decision.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE VAN SERVICES.

Mr. Wootton-Davies: asked the Postmaster-General to what extent post office vans will be used in the scheme for pooling vehicles to reduce the unnecessary use of fuel in retail deliveries; and whether he will arrange that in rural districts, in particular where retail deliveries present particular difficulties, post office vans will play their part in the new pooling system?

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Grimston): The Post Office is already delivering many articles through the post which were formerly delivered direct by retailers; it is prepared to accept additional items if posted in the normal way. In view, however, of the importance of a regular and speedy mail service, which is already adversely affected by the war, it is not possible to accept for delivery articles not properly transmissible by post. Post Office van services have been considerably curtailed since the outbreak of the war in the interest of national economy, both as regards the number of vans used and in mileage run.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.

SCRAP METAL SALVAGE.

Mr. Higgs: asked the Minister of Supply whether, in view of the present position, it is necessary to continue the demolition of railings and carry on the other special drives for scrap?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Peat): Yes, Sir. The weekly tonnages required for maintaining the output of steel are very large, and it is only by the most intensive collection by the Ministry of Works and Buildings of all the available material for scrap that this production can be maintained.

LOW-GRADE PHOSPHATE DEPOSITS.

Mr. Wootton-Davies: asked the Minister of Supply whether he can give any information as to the steps he is taking to increase the production of home-produced phosphatic manures?

Mr. Peat: The production of ground basic slag has been substantially increased during the war, and it is proposed to instal additional grinding plant to treat the total quantity of suitable slag available. Steps have been taken in collaboration with the Ministry of Food to secure the maximum collection of bones, which are used for fertilizers and feeding-stuffs. In addition, the practicability in present conditions of working certain low grade phosphate deposits in the country is under investigation.

Mr. Wootton-Davies: Are steps being taken to work the natural deposits of phosphates in this country?

Mr. Peat: Yes, Sir; we are considering that, and we are on the point of coming to a decision. In fact the day before yesterday we had a meeting with Professor Hawkins, of Reading University, and I hope to be able to announce what the decision is in the course of a few days.

MID-SUSSEX LUMBER COMPANY.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: asked the Minister of Supply why the Mid-Sussex Lumber Company has been permitted to establish itself on productive land at a place of which he has been notified; what are the names of the directors; and whether any, or all, of the long-established timber firms within a few miles have been given the opportunity of buying and processing the raw material concerned?

Mr. Peat: I am informed that the Directors of the Company referred to are Mr. A. L. Rye and Mr. A. F. Chapman. I assume my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to the site for the sawmill. No permission from the Ministry of Supply is required for the acquisition or use of this land, which was presumably acquired under private agreement with any necessary permission from the local or other authority. As regards the last part of the Question, the standing timber in question was privately owned and I am not aware whether other merchants negotiated for its purchase. If any established firm should find it difficult to obtain supplies, the Home Timber Production Department would be glad to give it all possible assistance in finding them.

PRIVATE MOTOR CAR TYRES.

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Supply whether he will issue to those persons who hand in their tyres in response to the request made by his Ministry some form of receipt which will enable them to have priority in purchasing other tyres at a later date?

Mr. Peat: I am afraid this would not be practicable. I am grateful for the contribution to the national effort made by those who hand in their tyres for further use; but priority in the purchase of tyres at a later date will no doubt have to depend upon the degree of essentiality of the transport, and I cannot mortgage the future.

Sir W. Smithers: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that those who have

voluntarily given up their tyres to the national effort should have some amount of preference when the war is over? Further, can he tell the House when it is proposed to introduce the compulsory taking-up of tyres?

Mr. Peat: It is extremely difficult to give any preference to those who voluntarily give up their tyres, because any promise we might make in that direction might be very hard to fulfil in the future. With regard to the steps which my right hon. Friend may be taking to requisition tyres on laid-up cars, I cannot make a statement on that matter at the moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST-WAR TERRITORIAL SETTLEMENT.

Wing-Commander James: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance that His Majesty's Government will enter into no treaty agreement anticipating a post-war territorial settlement except conjointly with all our Allies and after first submitting any such proposal to Parliament?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Richard Law): I have been asked to reply. I do not think it would be possible to give so far-reaching an assurance in these precise terms, since a variety of contingencies have to be kept in mind. As regards consultation with Parliament, His Majesty's Government do not propose to depart from the existing practice, with which my hon. and gallant Friend is doubtless familiar.

Mr. Maxton: Would the hon. Gentleman refresh the memory of the House as to what the existing practice is?

Mr. Law: I should have thought that the existing practice was well known to the House. It was last laid down in July, 1929, by the then Foreign Secretary, Mr. Arthur Henderson, and I think my hon. Friend would find it in the OFFICIAL REPORT for 17th July, 1929.

Major Cazalet: Has not the principle already been set out in the Atlantic Charter, and also in certain statements by the Prime Minister?

Mr. Law: I do not think there is anything in the Atlantic Charter which refers to this Question.

Mr. Maxton: Was it not laid down that all Treaties should be submitted for approval to this House before final ratification?

Mr. Law: The agreement at that time was that all Treaties subject to ratification should be submitted to this House before they were ratified.

Mr. Maxton: Was not that practice departed from in regard to the Abyssinian Treaty, the only one produced since the war started?

Mr. Law: I think the hon. Gentleman will find that the Abyssinian Treaty was not subject to ratification.

Sir H. Williams: Is it not the case that the Atlantic Charter is not a Treaty, but only a declaration of intention by two eminent persons?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

WOMEN'S LAND ARMY.

Mr. Pearson: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will consider the granting of travel facilities to members of the Women's Land Army upon terms not less favourable than those announced by the Minister of Labour for workers who have been transferred to war work by his Department since 1st June, 1940?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I am glad to assure the hon. Member that such facilities are already provided.

FARM RENTS.

Mr. Leslie: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that landowners in many parts of the country are demanding big increases in rents from farmers, which may lead to increased prices for produce; and what steps does the Government contemplate taking to prevent landowners demanding increases in rent?

Mr. Hudson: Farm rents under existing tenancy contracts are not subject to revision except by agreement between the parties, or as the result of arbitration under Section 12 of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923. In the case of a fresh contract the rent to be paid is a matter for arrangement between the parties. I

have heard of some isolated cases of increased rents, but I have no general information on the point.

Mr. Leslie: May I ask the Minister whether he has not seen the reports in the Press of these cases, and surely it is an illustration of where the landlords—

Mr. Speaker: rose.

BULB GROWING.

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that much disquiet has been caused among smallholders in Lincolnshire by the order drastically to reduce acreage under bulbs for export; that such a change would destroy the capital of many ex-Servicemen; and whether holders of less than 50 acres can be excluded from the proposal?

Mr. Hudson: The reductions which have been made since the outbreak of war in the acreage allowed for bulb growing are essential in the interests of food production. I regret that I cannot make exceptions in favour of any particular class of growers.

Mr. Parker: Cannot some compensation be given to the smaller people, who have lost a large amount of their capital?

Mr. Hudson: They were warned as long ago as September, 1939, of what was likely to happen, and they have done pretty well in the intervening years.

Lieutenant Butcher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the acreage occupied by many of these smallholders is so restricted that in the absence of permission to grow these crops it will be very difficult for them to secure a living from their holdings?

RUBBER CULTIVATION.

Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether any experiments have been undertaken in this country in growing rubber-bearing plants; and whether he has full information of the rubber crop now being cultivated in various regions of Russia?

Mr. Hudson: The answer to both parts of the Question is in the negative.

LIVESTOCK (ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION).

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the harm likely to be caused to the livestock Indus-


try of this country by the improper or indiscriminate use of artificial insemination, he will take the necessary steps to ensure that this practice is properly controlled?

Mr. Hudson: Yes, Sir. The Agricultural Improvement Council, which, as my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, recently appointed a Committee for the purpose of supervising the initiation and conduct of two large-scale field trials in artificial insemination at Cambridge and Reading, have expressed the view that in order to avoid jeopardising the successful establishment of this practice, steps should be taken to prevent its indiscriminate commercial exploitation. I accordingly propose to ask Parliament at the first convenient opportunity for powers enabling me, in the interests of the livestock industry, to control the practice of artificial insemination by specifying the conditions under which it may be employed and by restricting its use to properly authorised persons in all cases, except where the animals to be inseminated are in the same ownership as the animal providing the semen.

THRESHING MACHINES (SAFETY PRECAUTIONS).

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in connection with the employment of young people on threshing machines, he will take steps, through the county war agricultural committees, to draw the attention of those employing them to the danger of accidents which can be guarded against; and, regarding some implements which are dilapidated and rotten, especially in connection with the platforms and safety-boards to the feeders, take adequate steps to ensure that these implements are in a sound condition in view of the number of accidents which took place last season?

Mr. Hudson: I will certainly draw attention to the importance of guarding against accidents with threshing machines, and see what more can be done to impress on owners the necessity for safeguards.

Mr. De la Bère: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that this Question was inspired by the large number of accidents which took place in my constituency, and will he be good enough specially to draw attention to it there?

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST INDIES (ANGLO-AMERICAN COMMISSION).

Mr. Riley: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now give the names of the British section of the Anglo-American Commission for work in the West Indies?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Harold Macmillan): Yes, Sir. The British co-Chairman is Sir Frank Stockdale, the Comptroller for Development and Welfare in the West Indies. The other two British members of the Commission are appointed ad hoc on the occasion of each meeting of the Commission according to the particular subjects to be discussed. The two members appointed for the first meeting were Sir Rupert Briercliffe, the medical adviser to the Comptroller, and Mr. Caine, of the Economic Department of the Colonial Office.

Mr. Riley: May I take it that the Commission has now commenced its work satisfactorily?

Mr. Macmillan: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT AND WELFARE SCHEMES.

Mr. Riley: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now give a list of the schemes now put into operation under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act and the particular Colonies to which these schemes apply?

Mr. Harold Macmillan: Yes, Sir. I could readily prepare for the House a statement on the lines of the return which was made last year under Section 1 (4) of the Colonial Development and Welfare Act, 1940. My Noble Friend is, however, proposing to include such a schedule of the schemes which are in operation under the Act, in a more comprehensive report, reviewing the progress which has been made since the Act came into force. I trust that my hon. Friend will be prepared to wait a short time until this fuller report has been completed.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

CLOTHES RATIONING.

Major Cazalet: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will


allow the coupons issued to serving officers to be used for the purchase of essential sports kit?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterhouse): Sports kit may already be supplied without coupons to units of His Majesty's Forces for their communal use. The Board of Trade are discussing with the Service Departments the possibility of allowing officers to use their coupons for the purchase of civilian clothing, including sports kit.

Mr. Maxton: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman say how an officer can communally use a pair of football boots?

Captain Waterhouse: It means that they are used first by one officer, then by another officer.

Mr. T. Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the many complaints coming from colliery surface-workers engaged on work where damage to clothes is inevitable; that they are unable to replace same owing to shortage of coupons; and whether, in the interest of production, consideration to their claim will be considered?

Captain Waterhouse: After consultations with the miners' representatives, additional coupons have already been awarded to many categories of colliery surface workers. I regret that it is not possible to supplement these awards for the present rationing year, which ends on 31st May.

Mr. Smith: May I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will keep this matter constantly in mind, as it is causing a little irritation at some pits where the work is difficult?

Captain Waterhouse: We are in touch with representatives of the men.

GAS AND ELECTRICITY CHARGES.

Mr. Spearman: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will arrange that the two-part tariff system and minimum charges are modified so as to encourage, rather than penalise, economy in the consumption of gas and electricity?

Captain Waterhouse: The question of minimum charges for electricity and fixed charges under two-part tariffs for electricity and gas is one of the matters now being examined in consultation with the

industries from the point of vew of economy of fuel and the effect which any rationing scheme may have on electricity and gas charges and tariffs.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

BOARD OF TRADE (PUBLIC RELATIONS AND PRESS OFFICE).

Sir H. Williams: asked the President of the Board of Trade what increase in personnel and salary there has been in the Public Relations and Press Departments of his Ministry as compared with the position before the war?

Captain Waterhouse: The Press work of the Board of Trade before the war occupied part of the time of officers of a branch also concerned with other work. No close estimate of the cost of the Press work as such can therefore be made, but the annual cost of the salaries of the two officers mostly concerned was approximately £800. War conditions have necessitated grave interference with trade and industry, and in order to keep the public informed of the changes involved it was thought desirable to set up a Public Relations and Press Office. Details of the present personnel and the cost were given in the reply which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) on 29th April, a copy of which I am sending to him.

Sir H. Williams: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman think that Public Relations are the duties of Ministers and not the duties of civil servants because they involve matters of controversy?

Captain Waterhouse: I think it is a duty both of Ministers and civil servants. It is necessary and desirable that Departments should have civil servants whose task it is to keep the public informed of the many changes that have taken place necessitated by the war.

MINISTRY OF WORKS AND BUILDINGS (STAFF).

Mr. Bossom: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings approximately how many of the 13,510 members of staff of his Ministry, performing duties of a technical nature, are below the call-up age limit; and whether he will release these to join the Forces and replace them by


experienced technicians above Service age?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings (Mr. Hicks): There are approximately 800 of the professional and technical staff who were below the age of reservation when they registered for military service; of this number 126 are to be released, 48 are medically unfit for service, 130 are still under consideration for release and application for deferment of call-up has been made for the remainder, approximately 500. Efforts have been and will continue to be made to obtain suitable substitutes for this number, which includes architectural staff, engineers and estate agents.

Mr. Bossom: In view of the great difficulty from which middle-aged architects and engineers are suffering at the present time, could the Parliamentary Secretary state whether it is the policy of his Ministry to do the same with experienced and established architects and drive them out of business in the same way as the medium-sized experienced builders have been driven out of business?

Oral Answers to Questions — FORGED CLOTHING COUPONS (SENTENCES).

Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to a recent case involving a large-scale distribution of forged clothing coupons, for which the prime mover only received four years' imprisonment; and whether, in view of the gravity of such offences against the State, he will take the necessary steps to see that more drastic and deterrent punishment can be imposed in future for such offences?

Captain Waterhouse: My hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate that the determination of the penalties in particular cases rests with the courts.

Sir J. Lucas: In view of the fact that in this case it was stated that if this had gone on, the whole rationing system of the country would have been endangered, cannot something be done to impress on reluctant judiciaries that offences against the State are rather important?

Captain Waterhouse: I should not like to take upon myself the task of making such a representation.

Mr. Thorne: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now give any information in connection with the 22 men and women charged with forging 97,000 clothing coupons; and from what printing presses the coupons emanated?

Captain Waterhouse: Twelve persons were convicted. The sentences ranged from four months' imprisonment to four years' penal servitude. The printing press on which the coupons were printed belonged to Cohen, who was sentenced to four years' penal servitude.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR DAMAGE INSURANCE (LOOTING).

Sir J. Lucas: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether insurances effected under the War Damage Act against air-raids include damage by looting during, or within a reasonable time after, such raids?

Captain Waterhouse: Damage or loss by looting is not covered by policies issued under the War Damage Act.

Sir J. Lucas: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that his reply will cause widespread anxiety among the victims?

Captain Waterhouse: The policy is based on the declaration of the Prime Minister of 5th September, 1940, when this matter was first discussed. He laid down this as the general principle upon which we had to base our proposals:
… unless the House was prepared to draw the distinction very sharply between war damage by bomb and shell and the other forms of loss which are incurred we could not attempt to deal with this matter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th September, 1940; col. 42, Vol. 365.]

Oral Answers to Questions — BUILDING OPERATIONS.

Mr. Bossom: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings whether he will institute the procedure of permitting the use throughout Great Britain of new constructional materials or processes after they have been officially approved by the Building Research Station without further recourse to any other formalities or regulating authorities?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings (Mr. Henry Strauss): My Noble Friend cannot accept a proposal which would deprive planning authorities of power to take relevant local circumstances into account.

Mr. Bossom: Is it not desirable that once the research station has examined and approved any material and stated it to be perfect, should not that make its use legal all over the country instead of compelling local authorities to apply all over again to amend by-laws to permit its, use?

Mr. Strauss: I think what the hon. Member has in mind is approval under building by-laws. If that is the case, the hon. Member's Question should be addressed to my right hon. Friends the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Bossom: Was not the Ministry of Works and Buildings required to call into conference the other Departments? I think those were the very words given to the House when the Lord Privy Seal told us about the formation of this Ministry.

Oral Answers to Questions — UTHWATT AND SCOTT COMMITTEES (REPORTS).

Mr. Bossom: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings when Mr. Justice Uthwatt's Committee and Lord Justice Scott's Committee, respectively, started their investigations; and when does he expect their reports will be submitted to this House?

Mr. H. Strauss: The first meetings of the Committees referred to were held on 7th February, 1941, and 23rd October, 1941, respectively. An interim report of Mr. Justice Uthwatt's Committee was received on 25th April, 1941. My Noble Friend understands that both Committees are now engaged upon the preparation of their reports, but he is unable to say when he will receive them.

Mr. Bossom: Does the hon. Gentleman think it is very desirable that we should get these reports as quickly as possible, as they will have such an effect on postwar building design?

Mr. Strauss: Certainly. I made that clear in a recent Debate. These Committees

are working very hard and will produce their reports as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT, MANCHESTER AND SALFORD.

Mr. Oldfield: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he has considered the report on local transport from the Manchester and Salford Trades and Labour Council; has he a statement to make; and what action he proposes to take?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): The memorandum, a copy of which was received in the Ministry of War Transport on 18th May, is now being considered. I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

APPLES (PRICE).

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will take action before the apple season commences to impose graded prices in order to prevent a repetition of last season, when retailers and consumers were compelled to pay the controlled price for drops and thirds?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Major Lloyd George): No, Sir. It would not be practicable to enforce statutory provisions prescribing varying maximum prices for different grades of apples sold on the fresh fruit market.

Mr. Morrison: Does that mean that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is going to allow the same thing this season as happened last season, when people were compelled to pay the national prices for throw-outs?

Major Lloyd George: I am advised that last year, which was a very light apple year, a good many apples of low grade were sold well below the national prices. I have no reason to fear that this year grading will not be carried on.

GROCERS' ASSISTANTS (SOUTH WALES AND MONMOUTHSHIRE).

Sir Charles Edwards: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he has considered a telegram sent from the South Wales and Monmouthshire grocery distributors about the


calling up of assistants, both male and female, which is making it almost impossible to carry on; and what steps he intends to take in the matter?

Major Lloyd George: The matters raised in the telegram sent from the South Wales and Monmouthshire grocery distributors about the calling up of assistants has been considered. Under present arrangements, decisions regarding applications for deferment of employees are taken locally by the Ministry of Labour district man-power boards in consultation with divisional officers of my Department. I can assure my hon. Friend that the need for maintaining adequate means for food distribution is fully appreciated by the Departments concerned.

Mr. Lipson: Will the views of local food committees be taken in this matter? Can I have an answer?

Oral Answers to Questions — WASTE OIL (UTILISATION).

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Secretary for Petroleum whether, in view of the fact that there is attaching to waste motor oil from crank-case drainings, etc., a certain fuel value and the possibility of its utilisation in several directions, he will take steps to form a comprehensive organisation to deal with this waste product throughout the country?

The Secretary for Petroleum (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): Yes, Sir. Much is already being done in re-refining used lubricating oil, and the Petroleum Board are organising a scheme for the more complete collection of waste oil by areas. It would not, however, be an economic use of transport, petrol and man-power to convey small quantities of waste oil considerable distances. In such cases it should be sold locally as a fuel.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in spite of the efforts of his Department—and I fully acknowledge those—there is still a great deal of waste, and that a further comprehensive scheme is required to ensure that the waste going on shall not continue? It should be watertight—or oiltight.

Mr. Lloyd: I think that improvements can be made by having a more complete scheme.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOYS IN MINES (EARNINGS).

Sir C. Edwards: asked the Secretary of State for Mines the average earnings of boys between the ages of 14 to 16 and 16 to 18, respectively, in mines?

The Secretary for Mines (Mr. David Grenfell): As the answer is long and contains a number of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's consent, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

Information concerning the actual earnings of boys in the coal-mining industry is not at present available, though an investigation is being made at the request of the Coal Production Council and of the committee appointed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service to inquire into the recruitment of boys into the industry. An inquiry was made recently into the rates of payment per shift for boys in each district. Differences between districts in the methods of payment and in the actual rates make it impossible for me to give the results of this inquiry within the limits of Parliamentary Question and Answer, but my hon. Friend may be interested in the average national rates for Great Britain calculated from the district figures. They include all bonuses and special additions and are as follow:


—
Underground.
Surface.



Per shift.
Per shift.



s.
d.
s.
d.


Aged 14
5
9
5
0


Aged 15
6
4
5
6½


Aged 16
6
11½
6
2


Aged 17
7
9
6
9


Aged 18
9
0
7
10

Oral Answers to Questions — BATTLE OF THE ATLANTIC (PUBLICITY).

Colonel Carver: asked the Minister of Information whether he will arrange for the issue of a booklet on the fines of "The Battle of Britain" to publicise the achievements of the Navy and Mercantile Marine in the Battle of the Atlantic?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information (Mr. Thurtle): One great story of the Mercantile Marine, "The Saga of the San Demetrio," was published yesterday. We should very


much like to publish more comprehensive accounts of the achievements of the Navy and Mercantile Marine in the Battle of the Atlantic, but security reasons have hitherto made this very difficult.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

RECRUITS, NORTHEEN IRELAND (BADGE).

Major Sir Ronald Ross: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in order to promote recruiting, voluntary recruits from Northern Ireland may be permitted to wear a small emblem of the red hand in the same position and manner as troops of certain overseas contingents wear the name of their place of origin?

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Sandys): I regret that it would not be practicable to adopt my hon. and gallant Friend's proposal, which would cut across the existing system of badges for units from all parts of the United Kingdom.

Sir R. Ross: In view of the refusal of this House to extend the National Service Acts to Northern Ireland, are no steps to be taken to encourage voluntary recruiting? Does my hon. Friend not think that this would assist voluntary recruiting in this exceptional case?

Mr. Sandys: The adoption of my hon. and gallant Friend's proposal to have a distinguishing badge for Northern Ireland, as in the case of troops from the Dominions, might give rise to an impression that Northern Ireland was not regarded as an integral part of the United Kingdom.

Sir R. Ross: As it has not been regarded as an integral part of the United Kingdom as regards National Service, could we not have this distinction?

CIGARETTES AND TOBACCO (CANTEENS).

Sir A. Baillie: asked the Secretary of State for War whether independent canteens will be included in the scheme under which troops may buy cigarettes at pre-Budget prices at other Service canteens?

Captain Crowder: asked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether he will arrange for coupons to be issued to troops entitling them to purchase a certain number of cigarettes at pre-Budget price at any recognised Service canteen;
(2) whether he will arrange for the Service canteens which are not controlled by the Council of Voluntary War Work to be given the same facilities for supplying Service personnel with cigarettes at pre-Budget prices as are proposed for Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes and Council of Voluntary War Work canteens?

Mr. Sandys: In order to secure a fair distribution of the supplies available to all entitled personnel and to prevent sales to those not so entitled, it has been necessary to arrange that sales at the privilege price shall only be made by Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes canteens and approved canteens operated by the constituent bodies of the Council of Voluntary War Work. Other canteens will, however, be able to buy supplies of cigarettes and tobacco, as before, for sale to Service personnel, or otherwise, at normal prices. The arrangements' to secure equitable distribution to entitled personnel were explained to my hon. and gallant Friend in an answer given him on 19th May. It is not considered that the introduction of coupons will be necessary.

Sir A. Baillie: Does my hon. Friend realise that that answer will cause disappointment to those concerned and that probably 90 per cent. of the independent canteens are in the smaller villages where they are the only sources from which the troops can buy cigarettes? Surely those are the very sections of the Army which we should be most concerned to help?

Mr. Sandys: My hon. Friend will appreciate that we must be extremely careful to avoid abuse of this privilege. We have therefore had to lay down a rule that cigarettes shall not be sold at two different prices in the same canteen. I think the arrangements we have made are the best that can be made in the circumstances. The improved method of control about which the House has been told in a previous answer is being introduced on 1st June, and I hope that it will secure equitable distribution.

Sir A. Baillie: Why should there be any differentiation between the N.A.A.F.I. canteens and the independent canteens?

Mr. Sandys: It is because we have to ensure that the canteens which are included in the scheme sell cigarettes only at the privilege price. A great number of


the canteens to which my hon. Friend refers sell to outside persons who are not entitled to the concession.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will make arrangements for a Debate at an early date on the White Paper dealing with the transfer of merchant shipping, partly because the thing is arguable, and partly because there might be repercussions on the post-war situation? Also, I would like to ask whether it will be possible to suspend the operation of the agreement reached, until the Debate has taken place?

The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Stafford Cripps): Obviously, I cannot answer the latter question without notice. As regards the former question, we certainly will bear in mind the desire of the House, and arrangements will be made through the usual Channels.

Mr. Shinwell: On the question of the application of the scheme which appears in the White Paper, can we have an assurance that this will not be proceeded with until hon. Members have had an opportunity of expressing their views on the subject?

Sir S. Cripps: Obviously, I cannot give an undertaking without having had any notice whatever to enable me to consult other Ministers about it.

Mr. Shinwell: Does my right hon. Friend understand that if this scheme is proceeded with without Members having had an opportunity to express an opinion, on so substantial a change, the Government may have to meet a storm? They have too many storms already.

Sir W. Davison: I stated in the House yesterday that/like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox), I had been refused a copy of Army Council Instruction 422, with regard to the removal of officers over 55 years of age. I have this morning received a copy of the Army Council Instructions, but Article 422 has been removed—or is not there. What is a Member of Parliament to do in those circumstances? It is a matter of great importance that we

should know whether what the House has approved is carried out in regard to officers in the Army.

Mr. Sandys: I really do not know to what my hon. Friend is referring, but if, as I gather he has received a copy of the wrong Army Council Instruction by mistake, he has only to ask me, and I will send him the right one.

Sir W. Davison: It is not a question of receiving a wrong copy; it is only that Article 422, with which I am concerned, is not there.

Mr. Sandys: As I said, if my hon. Friend has received a copy of an A.C.I. other than that for which he asked, it is evident that there has been a mistake, which will be corrected.

Sir Ralph Glyn: Will the Leader of the House be good enough to say when it is intended to announce to Parliament the changes in the War Office organisation on technical advice?

Sir S. Cripps: I cannot say the exact date, but I know that the Secretary of State for War intends to do it very shortly.

Mr. Lindsay: As a number of Members want a Debate on the whole question of the registration of youth can the Lord Privy Seal say whether there will be any time given for such a Debate after the Whitsuntide Recess?

Sir S. Cripps: The Motion for the Adjournment to-day would have provided a suitable opportunity, if hon. Members had taken the steps to put forward that demand; but I understand that a request has been made for an early date on which the Board of Education Estimates can be discussed, and probably that will provide the opportunity desired.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that, while it is desirable to discuss youth, we also want to discuss old age pensions?

Sir S. Cripps: I understand that.

PRIVILEGE (SUBPŒNA).

Sir Herbert Williams: I wish to ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a matter which may immediately affect the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Bethnal Green


(Sir P. Harris), my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Viscountess Davidson) and myself, and may retrospectively affect all Members of Parliament. Some months ago a constituent well known to me asked me to take up with the Home Secretary a question of a gentleman interned under Regulation 18B. My constituent supplied a memorandum indicating a prima facie case for further investigation, and I sent it to the Home Secretary. However, the right hon. Gentleman was not impressed, and I informed my constituent accordingly. Later, but for other reasons, the interned gentleman was released, and he is, I believe, taking certain legal proceedings against the Lord President of the Council. The solicitors to the gentleman released recently wrote to me and indicated that they intended to subpœna me for the purpose of giving evidence to show that steps had been taken to secure the release of the interned gentleman and stated that they wanted me to give evidence that I had written a letter to the Minister. If Members of Parliament are to run the risk of subpœna whenever they write to a Minister of the Crown, the position of Members of Parliament will be intolerable, and it is for that reason that I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I am at a loss to understand whether the hon. Member asks for my Ruling or for my guidance.

Sir H. Williams: At the moment I have not received a subpœna, but only an intimation that I may be subpœnaed.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member himself will recognise that a case has not yet arisen on which I could give a Ruling. If he had actually received a subpœna, that would be a concrete fact upon which a Ruling could be given. Any Ruling that I could give now upon a set of facts which have not arisen and the circumstances of which are unforseeable would be a hypothetical Ruling—the kind of Ruling it has always been my practice and that of my predecessors to refrain from giving.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

Lancelot William Joynson-Hicks, Esq., commonly called the Honourable Lancelot William Joynson-Hicks, for the County of West Sussex (Chichester Division).

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—

Aberdeen Corporation (Fish Market Rates) Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to exclude from retention under Section five of the Coal Act, 1938, interests arising under certain concurrent leases; and for purposes connected therewith."—[Coal (Concurrent Leases) Bill [Lords].

And also a Bill intituled, "An Act to extend the term of service of Members of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve."—[Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve Bill [Lords].

ROYAL NAVAL VOLUNTEER RESERVE BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day.

CIVIL ESTIMATES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1942).

Estimate presented,—of the further sum required to be voted for the service of the year ending 31st March, 1943 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 89.]

ADJOURNMENT (WHITSUNTIDE).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. James Stuart.]

INDUSTRY (WAR-TIME REGULATION).

Mr. T. Smith: I desire to raise matters relating to the Essential Work Order and to the Restriction of Engagement Order, which applies to agriculture, and matters arising from them. I want to do so, in these days when we have a very delicate situation to handle in one of our principal industries, in no spirit of hostility either to the Orders themselves or to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. I recognise, as most hon. Members recognise, that something in the nature of these Essential Work Orders were absolutely inevitable in time of war, and I am not unmindful of the fact that the Essential Work Orders which apply to a large number of industries have conferred substantial benefit upon the workers. I am fortified in that statement on account of the attack which is now being made, in the Press and elsewhere, on certain parts of the Essential Work Order by people who are not unknown in the mining industry. But before dealing with particular cases I want to say that the advantages conferred by the Essential Work Orders upon the workers, in the sense of giving a guaranteed wage in some industries and of making it conditional that there should be certain welfare developments, is a step in the right direction, though nobody must run away with the idea that a man can get the guaranteed wage unless he fulfils certain conditions.

ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned—

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Anglo-Venezuelan Treaty (Island of Patos) Act, 1942.
2. Aberdeen Corporation (Fish Market Rates) Order Confirmation Act, 1942.
3. Newcastle and Gateshead Waterworks Act, 1942.

INDUSTRY (WAR-TIME REGULATION).

Question again proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."

Mr. T. Smith: I was endeavouring to show that the Essential Work Order as applied to many industries, and particularly to one of which I know a great deal, meant a good many advantages for the workers. I was also pointing out that, quite recently, attacks have been made by different people on the Essential Work Order. I have a number of letters here to that effect. A very important letter was written by Lord Londonderry to "The Times" the other day about it and the hon. Member for the High Peak Division (Mr. Molson) had a reference to it, in his five-point letter to "The Times." One or two other people have been writing to the provincial Press, people who are known to me from my experience in the mining industry and they seem to suggest that the Essential Work Order, as applied to mining, has weakened discipline and that stricter discipline should be exercised over those engaged in that industry. I would say straight away that I am not sure what is meant by this exercise of war discipline in industry and I would like to know. It is true that under the Essential Work Order a man cannot be discharged by the employer except for wilful misconduct. What exactly constitutes wilful misconduct is a matter to be determined by the machinery which has been set up for that purpose. It is also true to say that since we have had the Essential Work Order we have had far less victimisation, which was far too common in industry, particularly in mining. Having discussed this matter with representatives of the miners and coalowners, I think that these references to lack of discipline in the mining industry are largely overdone and are not doing any good.
Part of one Order lays it down that for those inside industry there must be certain conditions and certain duties. Where these Orders have applied I think the joint committees have done more really good work than they have been given credit for. In "The Times" recently Lord Londonderry, whose history in the mining industry goes back to the Sankey Commission, when some of the evidence that was given still remains in our minds, said:
During recent months the operation of the unsatisfactory provisions of the Essential Work Order and the weak administration of them have tended to undermine the authority of the manager and officials and have completely failed to deal with absenteeism.
Generally speaking, that is not true. When you have an Order such as that which was applied to the mining industry, it was new to the industry, and it met with a certain amount of opposition by both sides. Its provisions and importance had to be explained, and in common with many other Members of this House it was my duty to attend mass meetings, to explain the Order. We derived considerable benefit from it. I am told on reliable authority that in Yorkshire from 95 to 97 per cent. of the pit production committees are working very well indeed. People who lightly bandy about figures with regard to absenteeism ought, at least, to be sure of their facts.
As one who has had to compile many statistics in industry, I know how easy it is to manipulate figures to uphold a particular point of view but the figures which I will quote are an example of the good work which pit production committees are doing and are joint figures agreed to by both sides. In South Yorkshire for January of this year avoidable absenteeism was 6.57 per cent.; for February it had been reduced to 5.88 per cent. and for March it had been reduced to 5.38 per cent. I think the House will agree that there has been a progressive reduction in avoidable absenteeism. The figures in West Yorkshire, I am told, are even lower than those for South Yorkshire. So, when 95 to 97 Per cent. of these committees are facing up to problems of production, which include absenteeism, in this way I think that they ought to be given credit for what has been done. Under the Essential Work Order there is machinery for failure to obey the direction of a National Service officer and for dealing

with absenteeism. There have been hundreds of cases of absenteeism dealt with by the pit production committees, greatly to the benefit of the pits, without the public knowing anything about them. Men have been talked to, warned and fined and have been told that if they work regularly for a month, their fines would be remitted. This kind of thing has worked very well. There have been a number of prosecutions, but I think that these, taken on the whole, are not quite as prevalent as one would imagine, having regard to the millions of people who are engaged in industry.
In the prosecutions which have related to the disobedience of a direction by a National Service officer there have been many cases which have aroused a good deal of public discussion. I want to be perfectly frank. Speaking for my hon. Friends in this House, we are not attempting in any way to defend anyone who will not play the game in the war effort. But we have a right to call attention to certain cases when we believe that by doing so we might do something to allay unrest and remove unjustifiable suspicion. There were, for instance, two Scots girls, not in the mining industry, who were sentenced to a month's imprisonment for refusing to leave Scotland to work in the Midlands. There was another case where a girl was fined or given the option of 30 days' imprisonment for refusing to leave Coatbridge to work in Birmingham. There have been other cases. I am not competent to say whether or not the justices in those cases made the punishment fit the crime because justices of the peace, many of whom I know and who have been concerned in some of these cases, have in these days a fairly difficult task to perform.
When we come to the question of the disobedience of an Order in the mining industry I want to point out one or two things which have been attempted, quite rightly, in the interests of increased production. The mining industry has for some time been trying to upgrade certain workers. They have been trying to get young men working at the pit top to work underground and have been trying in certain cases to replace them by older men. Upgrading is very necessary, but I want hon. Members to believe me when I say that there is on the part of some people a


reluctance to leave their present job and go underground. Sometimes the reason is psychological, sometimes it is because they prefer to get out of industry and sometimes because they prefer to go into the Services. I know of young men whose parents object to their going down a pit because so many of their relatives have been killed underground.
The fact is that we have had, as a result of these prosecutions, a number of strikes and a good deal of unrest in the coalfields. There was the case of two boys in the Doncaster area who refused to go to work underground and who were given three months' imprisonment. Later, the Home Secretary intervened and released these boys. Then there was a case in Ferryhill, where two boys were fined for refusing to go underground. They were dismissed, then they had a period of unemployment and then they were imprisoned for not paying their fines. Three or four pits, I believe, were on strike in sympathy, with a consequent big loss of output. The other morning I had a letter stating that two men who had been fined £20 each but had refused to pay the fine, had been arrested, and threatened with imprisonment. I am pleased to be able to say that I have just received a letter telling me that the men at the colliery have found the money, have got the two men released, and have prevented the possibility of a sympathetic strike which seemed very imminent last week. I mention this simply to show that the miners' leaders, both local and national, are not irresponsible, but are desirous of doing all they can to get the maximum output. In the case to which I referred, the two men have been released, and I hope there will be less difficulty.
With regard to these prosecutions, quite frankly I am in a dilemma, as I think most people are. Magistrates can only administer the law as it is, but I think that in these days a little more consideration ought to be given by some magistrates in some areas, because it is common talk in certain localities that certain justices of the peace never lose an opportunity of walloping the workers when they come before the Bench. This is having a bad effect. In my opinion, it is not always the wisest plan to impose a heavy fine or to send a man to gaol. The object is not to get men into gaol, but to get more production, to induce the men to become more regular workers. I am not sure

that it would not be a good thing if these men were bound over for a period and told that if they worked regularly over a length of time, that good conduct would be taken into account in assessing the punishment in the case before the court. This would have a good effect.
There is another side to this question of prosecutions. Most of the defendants are not represented by solicitors. The National Service officer is always represented by a solicitor. Those who have had experience of these things—and no one knows it better than my right hon. Friend—know that many people dread the very thought of going inside a court of law. The moment they get inside a court, they become bewildered and flustered. In local newspapers I have read the full reports on many cases where I have felt that if the men had had somebody to plead for them, to put certain things across, the decision of the court would have been different. Now that the Lord Privy Seal is present, I want to call his attention to the Essential Work Order as it applies to mining. Under the Essential Work (Coal Mining Industry) Order, 1941, No. 707, made by the Minister of Labour and National Service under Regulation 68A of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939—

The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Stafford Gripps): That has been revoked.

Mr. Smith: If it has been revoked, that is all to the good.

Sir S. Cripps: I think I am right in saying that Statutory Rules and Orders, 1941, No. 2096, is the one in operation. By Section 3 of that, Nos. 707 and 2008 are both revoked.

Mr. Smith: I am glad to hear that. It happens that the Order has been given to many local people, and there is in it, obviously, an error which makes the paragraph nonsensical. If it has been revoked, the Ministry ought to see that the local officials get the right Order, so that there may be no misunderstanding. In the Order which has been revoked, it was stated in Section 2, paragraph 2:
For the purpose of the prosecution of any person for an offence against Regulation 50A …
There is no Regulation 50A, and the reference should have been to 58A. If this had been the law of the land, as it was for a period, a clever lawyer might


have put somebody in difficulties with regard to these cases. There was an occasion when the House had to adjourn because one word in a Regulation was missing. I want in all sincerity to make one suggestion. We have no wish to defend bad time-keepers. We want to get the maximum production. At the same time, we do not want to do anything that will create any more industrial unrest. Would it be possible for my right hon. Friend to consider reviewing all the cases of persons in Great Britain who are in prison now under these Regulations? Would it be out of Order to suggest that some committee of, say, three Members—perhaps one with a judicial mind, and another with a knowledge of the industry—should review the cases of all those who are now in prison, or who have paid heavy fines, in order to see what injustice has been done and whether something could not be done to ease the position. I make that suggestion for what it is worth. With regard to fines, I have had sent to me the case of a young man who was fined £15 for bad time keeping. Over a period of weeks he had actually worked more than six days a week. He had in his mind, as his father told me frankly, the idea that if he put in six days' work in any week, he was entitled to have a day off, if he worked overtime on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and so on. Afterwards, when the position was explained to him, he saw that this was not a proper interpretation. There you had a case where a man had worked more than six days a week and was fined £15. I suggest that there ought to be some review of such cases in order to try to ease the position. Whether or not the Government accept my suggestion is a matter for them.

Mr. Colegate: May I ask the hon. Member whether the absence of legal representation is due to any Regulation, or whether he means that the men, or their respective trade unions, do not provide any legal assistance when the cases come before the courts?

Mr. Smith: The hon. Member can take it that in my county, about which I speak with some knowledge, we do not provide legal assistance in this type of case. It must be remembered that the trade unions have many things to do. We have never found legal assistance for disputes of a civil character, or for disputes between

member and member. We have not found legal assistance for disputes in regard to infringements of the Mines Act, unless we were satisfied there was a mistake. Therefore, the answer is "No."

Mr. Colegate: I was asking only for information. I was not criticising.

Mr. Smith: I now wish to turn to the Restriction of Engagement Order for agriculture. As I understand it, the Essential Work Order does not apply in England to ordinary farm workers working on private farms. I believe it applies to those directly employed by county war agricultural executive committees. This Order has worked very well. It gives farm workers the right to move from farm to farm with the consent of the National Service officer, but they may not leave the industry and go into another. What is generally not known is that the Minister, under Regulation 58A, has the power to direct nearly everyone in this country at any time to go to any place where he thinks it is desirable. This Regulation 58A has only been used in ex-exceptionally isolated cases. I think my right hon. Friend will agree that it was never intended that it should apply to the ordinary agricultural worker who desires to leave one farm and go to another. Some people regard agricultural workers as men who do not follow things very closely, and, therefore, anything is good enough for them. I have three cases here which, I think, warrant the attention of the House and of my right hon. Friend.
The first is a case of a man called E. Fischer, who wished to leave his employer, Mr. Jeffes, and go to work for Mr. Butler. The Agricultural Workers Union organiser, together with the Stroud branch secretary, interviewed the National Service officer at Stroud, who agreed to Fischer changing his employment. The farmer, however, did not want to lose him. He went to the Gloucestershire war agricultural executive committee and brought back the following letter:—

"The Palace,

Gloucester,

2nd April, 1942.

I hear from Mr. Jeffes that you wish to leave him. As you cannot give a reasonable excuse to wish for a new post, he does not think it wise under present circumstances to consent to your departure."

Although the National Service officer had agreed to the man going.


You are doing good, valuable work at present, and this Committee does not give permission for you to leave. If you leave without his consent" and permission, you are liable to severe penalties, and so is the farmer who employs you. I would, therefore, suggest that you stay where you are and continue the good work you are doing.

Yours faithfully,

(Signed) A. D. Morse."

Immediately the Labour officer discovered the Agricultural Workers Union had this matter in hand, he said that the letter was a mistake and should never have been sent out.

The second case concerns a man called J. Ayres. This man had been employed by Mr. Phillips, chairman of the Gloucester war agricultural executive committee's labour sub-committee. He desired to terminate his employment with Mr. Phillips and gave his required notice, as he had an offer of other employment with a farmer named Quick. Mr. Phillips went to the war agricultural executive committee and prevailed on them to request the National Service officer at the Cirencester employment exchange to issue a direction to Ayres. This he did under Regulation 58A directing him to remain in his present employment with Mr. Phillips under the terms and conditions already in operation. It is probable that Mr. Phillips did not disclose the fact that he had allowed another of his workers, named Curtis, to leave his employment after Ayres had given in his notice. Evidently, Mr. Phillips had a redundancy of labour, because in order to prevent Ayres leaving him, he took this action after Ayres signified his intention of leaving to render better service elsewhere. The man, however, was determined to exercise his rights, notwithstanding the operations of 58A, and he went to his other job. An appeal was made against the decision of the National Service officer, which was heard at Swindon on 30th April last, but so far the result has not been notified. The facts were placed before the Biennial Conference at Bournemouth on 8th and 9th May, when it was decided that the Union should support their member in every way possible. The Conference also passed a resolution vigorously protesting against this Regulation being used to prevent a farm worker changing his employment as he was entitled to do under the Restriction of Engagement Order.

The third case relates to a man called Norman, working on the land for Mr. Falconer of Calmsden,

who before entering agriculture had been employed at a service station of Messrs. Vauxhall Motors, Ltd., Luton. He, being a practical mechanic with a good knowledge of machinery, decided that as he was working as a day man for Mr. Falconer he could render better service through a full-time job as tractor driver. He obtained employment under the Buckinghamshire war agricultural executive committee. Mr. Falconer objected to his leaving, and the Gloucester war agricultural executive committee persuaded the National Service officer to issue a direction to prevent Norman leaving that employment. His appeal was heard at Swindon on 23rd April, and the National Service officer's direction was upheld. He then received the following letter from the Minister of Labour and National Service, Cirencester, 25th April, 1942:
In pursuance of Regulation 58A, I, the undersigned, having been duly authorised in writing by the Minister of Labour and National Service, do hereby direct you to perform the following services, being services, which, in his opinion, you are capable of performing:—(1) You shall continue in the employment of Mr. Falconer, of Calmsden, Glos., by whom you will be employed in the agricultural industry; (2) You will be employed at the standard rates and conditions appropriate to the job—agricultural rates and hours; (3) As from and including 4th May, 1942, you shall on every work day present yourself for the above employment punctually at such hour as may be generally observed as the starting hour for such employment. You shall also remain at this employment throughout the hours fixed for and generally observed with the employment in question; (4) During working hours you shall remain constantly at work, doing it properly, following the instructions of your employer, supervisor or manager, and observing the standards normally observed in your industry.

Mr. Buchanan: When was this?

Mr. Smith: It is dated 25th April, 1942.

Mr. Buchanan: Who was the Jonah who issued this?

Mr. Smith: Mr. Norman immediately rang up the head office of his union and was advised that in the circumstances he should carry out the directions and present himself for work at Mr. Falconer's on 4th May. This he did, and the following is his report:
I reported to Calmsden as directed by the National Service Officer. I was very surprised when the foreman, a Mr. Ebsworth,


told me that the National Service Officer phoned him a week ago, during which conversation Mr. Ebsworth informed the National Service Officer that he did not want me back as he was now fixed up.
I am not blaming my right hon. Friend. I am going to ask my right hon. Friend to make it clear that the Restriction of Engagement Order, as it applies to agriculture, means what it says and that there is no attempt to use Regulation 58A to sidestep or override the terms of the Restriction of Engagement Order. We want the same maximum production in agriculture as in every other industry. I only ask that my right hon. Friend shall have inquiries made into these three cases in order to see whether or not there is someone in that locality who is trying to do something that he is not entitled to do. I can only ask him to make whatever inquiries he thinks fit. There is anxiety in all parts of the House and the country about some of the sentences passed on these people who have been charged. I do not want to say anything to irritate the position more. We are all desirous of getting maximum production, and we have no desire to defend anyone who is not playing the game, but we feel that in some of these cases the judicial mind has not been applied and the right sentences have not been given. I ask him to consider the appointment of someone to review or supervise these cases and see whether some action cannot be taken.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I have taken some little interest in the problems that my hon. Friend has raised. I may be pardoned therefore if I pursue the points that he has made, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman (the Minister of Labour) will forgive me if I am a little more blunt with him than usual. Let us remember that since he came into office two of the cardinal principles of trade unionism have gone by the board. The right to strike and the right of a man to sell his labour to the highest bidder have been abolished. I am fortified in speaking against these restrictions and penalties on the workers because a resolution was carried almost unanimously at the annual conference of my trade union recently condemning all forms of industrial compulsion. I think it is historically true that some members of the working class are treated more harshly by the present Minister of Labour than has ever

been the case for the last century. I could give case after case where workmen have been sent to prison and, although he has prosecuted a few employers, not a single employer has yet been sent to gaol. I have seen in my constituency about 12,000 miners unemployed for 10 years. No one wanted them. Some of the most intelligent found their way ultimately to other industries. One of them was earning £7 or £8 a week in his new job, and the right hon. Gentleman says, "You must go back to the pit to work at £3 5s. a week." That is too much for human flesh. The man was prosecuted and sent to gaol for two months. I tell the right hon. Gentleman quite frankly that I am ashamed of his actions. He ought to know that it is said quite openly among some workpeople that the price the Labour movement is paying for this Coalition is that some of them are being sent to gaol. If the Labour Party had not joined the Coalition, no Tory or Liberal Minister would dare treat the working people as the right hon. Gentleman is doing. I want to be straight about it, because I feel very deeply. Some of these men who are prosecuted are ill-informed; they have no lawyers in court to defend them. The right hon. Gentleman, with all the weight of the State and all the legal jargon in his support comes along and sends them to prison, not because they will not work but because they do not work at jobs selected for them by him or because they do not work long or hard enough.
I will give him one case. A collier, 56 years of age, has worked 43 years underground. He worked the full week but, because he would not work an extra day, at the instance of the employer and the right hon. Gentleman's Department, he was taken to court and sent to gaol for a month. I do not care what your legal jargon may be; the mere fact that a man like that is sent to prison is an offence to the community. If I were in that man's position, you might send me underground, but I would produce nothing for you, and I understand that that is the temper of some of the people who are being compelled to go back to the pits.
I objected to Fascism when some hon. Members over there welcomed it. I object to it now, and while we are supposed to be fighting Fascism abroad we are adopting the very same principles


here at home. The right hon. Gentleman has conscripted women. They have never conscripted women in Italy or Germany so far as I know, and I protest against all these compulsions being imposed upon the working people. Moreover, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not achieve his object of greater production by these means. If you do not win the good will of the miners, if I understand them at all—and I have been one myself—you will not get more coal; you will not win their good will if you put them into gaol. If you put a collier in gaol, you may poison the whole street and the whole mining village in which he lives. My hon. Friend mentioned a case in Durham of two boys working on the surface who were sent to gaol because they refused to work underground and 5,300 miners came out on strike in sympathy. The right hon. Gentleman does not achieve his object of producing more coal in that way. I object to something else. If these miners in my division had committed offences against the common law, they would not be sent to gaol, they would probably be put on probation. The right hon. Gentleman ought to be careful in instituting these prosecutions. He must not forget that the magisterial bench is largely composed of employers, and I am sorry to say that some of them seem to like to get their own back on the working people on occasion.
I should like to quote from a letter that I have just received:
I should be pleased if you could assist me in any way in getting release from the Alexandria pit, Whelley. I made an application for my release but have been turned down by the Employment Exchange doctor, Dr. Graham, who states that I am lit for my employment as a dataller on light work. I am 56 years old and have worked in the pit all my days. I have asked the management for lighter work but they cannot find me any. I appealed against the decision and it was turned down. My son was killed in action in Malta on 7th March, 1942. He had 15 years' service. I served in the last war and was invalided home through war wounds. I served from 1914 to 1917, so if Dr. Graham can pass a man fit who has had three operations for hernia received in the said colliery, and receiving a pension for disablement as well, we ought to be an A.1 country.
The right hon. Gentleman employs his own doctors to determine these cases. I know something about doctors and I do not want to offend them, but I know that very often doctors provide medical certificates according to who pays them. That happens

in workmen's compensation cases. I object to a doctor who knows nothing about coalmining and has never been down a pit certifying this man as fit for work underground. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman release this man? He might be happy in another job doing something useful for the nation.
The right hon. Gentleman retorted the other day when I raised a question with him, "Parliament has given me powers to do all this." Parliament gave the Government powers to conscript wealth too, but they have not done it. The right hon. Gentleman is not bound to use all his powers against the workpeople. I must here pay a tribute to the Prime Minister. There is a regulation in force giving the Government power to prosecute people for causing alarm and despondency, and hundreds of cases were brought before the courts, but the Prime Minister came down to the House one day and practically stopped the lot. I plead with the right hon. Gentleman to abandon these prosecutions in industry.
Let me ask him a question that has bothered me. I live in Manchester, which is a port in addition to being a great smoky city. I understand that the dockers have a scheme to discipline their own members. Incidentally, I do not like the State using trade union machinery to discipline workers in the interests of the State. That is a new philosophy and I am opposed to it. How do the dockers discipline themselves? When they absent themselves from work are they brought before the courts and sent to gaol as in the case of miners? Perhaps the right lion. Gentleman will tell us what is the scheme in operation at the docks and in what way does it differ from the treatment meted out to miners. Fifty per cent. of the prosecutions already instituted by him are against miners.
The Minister of Mines allowed the Minister of Labour long ago to denude the pits of men. They bungled the whole industry in the process, and then, having denuded the pits of the best colliers, they now prosecute those who are left because they do not produce enough coal. The miners are expected to produce more coal, but has anybody seen the food rations meted out to them? I guarantee that when the Minister of Mines and I worked in the pits we would eat in a day all the meat that is now allowed for a week. We cannot expect men to produce


coal and do heavy work unless they are properly fed. I object to its being called absenteeism when workmen are incapable physically of performing their tasks. As stated, the right hon. Gentleman's Department has poisoned some of the mining communities by these prosecutions. The convicted man's mind is poisoned, his relations and his friends are poisoned, too, and the right hon. Gentleman ought to know what some of them say about him. I try to defend him as best I can, but I find it very difficult to do so.
The real problem of the coal industry, however, is that better wages are paid in nearly every other industry. Perhaps the House will forgive me if I relate my own story. I was a collier earning over £2 a week. That was a long time ago, and I was working on a good seam. I took a job as a cashier in the local cooperative society for 26s. a week. Clerks and shop assistants then were receiving about 60 per cent. of the wages paid to miners. To-day the reverse is the case. It is a strange thing in this country that the more arduous the toil you perform and the more dangerous the work you do, the less wages you get. The right hon. Gentleman and the Minister for Mines can still attract men and boys to the pits by giving them better wages. If they did that it would settle many of their difficulties. I feel very deeply about these things because men I know personally, decent fellows, have their records searched meticulously by the Ministry to find how many hours work they have lost and are then sent to prison. I do not believe in ca'canny or shirking, but it is not shirking when a man is doing work of national importance, earning £7 or £8 a week and refuses to go back to the mine for £3 or £4 when directed to do so by the right hon. Gentleman. When one man refused he was told that if he did not go back to the pit he would be de-reserved and forced into the Army.
We see in the Press to-day that the right hon. Gentleman is issuing a decree increasing the hours of labour of clerks. He knows that, because clerks are unorganised, they cannot fight against that. I wonder whether he will try it on the miners in due course. I ask him in all seriousness to abandon these prosecutions and find some better way of dealing with these labour problems. I have no sympathy

with shirkers; I want to see everybody at work. I have seen too much unemployment among miners to wish to see them out of work through shirking. Finally, I protest in the name of these decent folk against these prosecutions, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to make an effort to gain their good will by abandoning them. He will find that all human beings will do much better service in industry and for the nation if he does that.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown): The Minister of Labour.

Mr. Buchanan: On a point of Order. Ever since I have been a member of the House, almost 20 years, this Adjournment Debate has been the prerogative of private Members. To-day the only three speakers have belonged to the Front Benches. Is that not a violation of the traditions of this House? The Minister is about to reply, and that will virtually close the Debate. The issue we are discussing very much affects Scotland, and I submit that those of us who come from those distant parts should be given the opportunity of speaking before the Minister virtually closes the Debate.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The fact that the Minister is to speak does not necessarily close the Debate. On a Motion for the Adjournment for a Recess the Debate is not confined to one subject only, and very often is switched over to another subject, and therefore there is not an unlimited opportunity for private Members to speak.

Mr. Buchanan: But I do ask you to remember that there is a most important issue concerning Scotland, and that this is a historic day for the back benchers. It is the back benchers' day. The front benchers have all the other days, and we are entitled to one day. But three front benchers have been called. It is breaking with all the decent traditions of this House. You, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, are the protector of the back benchers, the only person from whom we can get protection. I am speaking for the sake of the part of the country from which I come, where women are being treated abominably. If this had happened in the last war those who are now defending it would have protested against it. I say that there has been a distinct break with all the decencies, that the back benchers have


been flung out and three front benchers who have all the privileges all the year have been called upon. I do not speak much in the House now—perhaps I am getting to be one of the old group in the House—and then I have to be told that I have to follow the Minister of Labour. Some of us know these things and feel very strongly about them.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is a matter for me to decide who is to be called.

Mr. Sloan: If the question of these girls who are being transferred from Scotland to England is not put before the Minister of Labour speaks, how can he reply to the case?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have called on the Minister of Labour.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): It is very difficult for me to deal in an Adjournment Debate with the whole range of Essential Work Orders for which I have been responsible. I am in the hands of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House but, speaking for myself, no one would more welcome a set Debate over the whole range of the Orders in which I could give a considered reply at the end of the Debate. It is difficult to deal with it on an Adjournment Debate in the manner in which one would deal with it after a set Debate.

Mr. Silverman: The right hon. Gentleman could have listened to the hon. Member.

Mr. Bevin: If I intervene now in this Debate, it is because I have a very important engagement in reference to a matter on which the House is waiting for information after Whitsun. Hon. Members cannot eat their cake and have it. A Minister has to try and carry through the obligations which the House has imposed upon him to deal with a particular matter at the earliest possible date, and whatever else I may be guilty of, I do not think anyone will accuse me of being idle or of neglecting my work. I think it will be useful if I try to deal with the position in regard to the operation of these Essential Work Orders. With regard to the specific cases affecting agriculture put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Norman-ton (Mr. T. Smith), I cannot be expected to answer him because I do not know of the cases, but I will go into them and will take steps to see that Regulation 58(A) is

made quite clear, if it should prove that there has been any confusion in the administration of it.
The House cannot forget that it carried the Act of 1940 without a Division, and though Dunkirk is not hanging over our heads at the moment, that does not alter the circumstances that we are at war. When I have to deal with matters of this character I have to distinguish between my critics, between those who support the war and are determined at all costs to see it through and those like the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), who would oppose everything I did because of his pacifist outlook and his attitude to this war.

Mr. Buchanan: That is only raising prejudice.

Mr. Bevin: I have to distinguish in that sense in the approach to this problem. Everybody has argued that this is a total war and that every bit of weight has to be put into it, and the Orders are designed to mobilise labour for use under the best possible conditions in the circumstances. I am not going to apologise for the Essential Work Orders. I, too, have been in the mining districts. I was in Barnsley the other week. I have not hesitated to meet the miners. I did not find that I had poisoned them. They turned out in their thousands to meet me on that Sunday morning, and they gave me great encouragement in carrying on the work I am trying to do. They know I have got a rotten job, but I am not going to refuse to face it, any more than I have ever refused to face any other rotten job in my life. There is one thing I will tell the House and the hon. Member for Westhoughton: whether it is a good or a bad job, no one in our movement can ever accuse me of playing to the gallery. Whether a thing is popular or unpopular does not concern me. I do not care whether I lose a seat in this House or whether I lose my place in this Government. I came into this Government with my eyes open to try to win the war, and when that is done let others go on and build the peace, if you like, but I knew what was at stake between Fascism, Nazism and ourselves.
One of the greatest things that would smooth the working of this war would be for industry to come forward now and agree whole-heartedly to accept the basic principle of the Essential Work Orders not


only for the war but for after the war, and then begin to discuss the matter on an entirely different footing. I had to introduce these Orders in an atmosphere of antagonism, antagonism because the employers hated it. They did not like the guaranteed week. I have fought for the guaranteed week all my life. I do not believe in the principle of anybody being able to say to his fellow citizen, "I employ you for a minute and then discharge you." I fought against that, and when I had to impose a Regulation of this kind I felt it was right that obligations to the men should be undertaken. You cannot have social security in this country without having some obligation. A military commander can say to a platoon or a company, "Go here" or "Go there," and they have to go, but they are organised and they are trained. What is my position? I do not deal with platoons or companies. I have to deal with individuals—with individuals running into millions—people who never expected to have discipline of any kind, except the most unfortunate discipline of all, the economic whip, which I want to remove and which I hope to live to see removed.
I devised appeal systems under the Orders, but in the end there has to be a final sanction of some kind, and what can it be? It is said that I go looking into the history of a miner, into his wages, into where he has been. I do nothing of the kind. [Interruption.] I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I will say nothing inaccurate. I appeal to hon. Members who attack me to adopt the same principle. Let us take prosecutions for absenteeism. I have not prosecuted miners for absenteeism, so far as I know, unless the cases have first been through the pit production committees. I was the first Minister in this country to make pit committees by an indirect method a legal part of the mining industry, which my hon. Friends opposite had been trying to get for many years. [An HON. MEMBER: "Quite true."] I think that statement will be accepted. I gave the committees certain powers. I could not give more. I gave as much as they would be prepared to take in present conditions.
Now, with regard to directions. It is not only the miners who have had to be directed; hundreds of people have had to be directed. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not to the same extent."] Many worse,

believe me To have to go into the industries of the country and direct people elsewhere is not a pleasant job. I have had to take people out of insurance offices and bank clerks, and all kinds of people, and direct them back to industry, with a loss of many pounds per week. It is not a very nice job to do, but I have had to do it. Why have I had to do it? This is where the trade union movement has had to make up its mind. Rightly or wrongly, I have accepted the view that wages ought to be fixed by collective bargaining, and I have had to fight hon. Members on all sides of the House against interfering with that principle. I have refused to be any party to departing from it. If I accept that principle, and the Government accept it, I must have the rate for the job when I direct men into a job. What is my alternative? How can I depart from it? I cannot be fixing wages for the State one minute because I have to direct a person to a job, and the next minute defend the trade unions and their collective bargaining. I ask Members to try and look at the problem all round.
I was attacked to-day by the hon. Member for Westhoughton, but I claim to have done more in his own industry to establish joint industrial councils and regulations in two years than he has been able to do for 40 years. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] My hon. Friend at the back of those benches appreciates the truth of that statement. There are seven councils in that industry, covering the whole of the industry, and I am told I have poisoned the working classes.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Will my right hon. Friend pardon me—

Mr. Bevin: I decline to give way. My hon. Friend must take his medicine as well as I have to take mine. If there is a day's Debate, I am willing to defend the whole of the Ministry of Labour.

Mr. Buchanan: Other people have opinions. Do not get so haughty about it, and about not giving way to the hon. Member. Who are you? You are an ordinary human being.

Mr. Bevin: I am not heated.

Mr. Buchanan: Yes, you are.

Mr. Tinker: Give Order.

Mr. Bevin: For the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) to lecture me on coolness is a very good thing. Let me


now deal with the general working of the Order, and with the problem of dealing with these individuals. The first question is of transference and direction. National Service officers, in the three months ended in February, had to deal with 413,000 cases. The number of cases in which we have had complaints is infinitesimal. As to labour turnover cases, that is the movement of labour from one job to another, there were 381,000 in round figures during those three months. There were 31,000 cases connected with discipline of one kind or another.

Mr. S. O. Davies: What kind of discipline?

Mr. Bevin: All kinds of discipline—absenteeism, failure to obey directions, and so on.

Mr. S. O. Davies: What about the figures of prosecution?

Mr. Bevin: I will come to them in a moment.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Let us have them now.

Mr. Bevin: I will come to them in a minute, if the hon. Member will bear with me. Those were complaints which reached the Department about people not turning up. I want hon. Members to keep that figure of 31,000 in their minds and to compare it with the number of prosecutions. Penalties imposed and legal proceedings taken have been negligible. There are 6,500,000 people under the Essential Work Order—I am not referring to the Restriction of Engagement. Order. The figure will probably soon rise to nearly 8,000,000, because I am being pressed by trade unions and employers to bring more under the Essential Work Orders. Frequent deputations are coming. Proceedings taken represent one worker per 10,000 covered by the Orders since they have been operated. Imprisonment has been imposed in one per 50,000. Of the women imprisoned, three were for offences under the Order—[An HON. MEMBER: "Two were from Scotland"]—and 12 for refusing to obey a direction. That makes a total of 15.
Employers have been prosecuted—three under the Order and 23 under the Restriction of Engagement Order. None have been imprisoned. More drastic steps have been taken to deal with employers

who have refused to carry out the Order. In certain cases managements have been removed. In other cases, as is well known by Scottish Members, I proposed, had they not yielded, to de-schedule the works altogether and take the people away. One has to devise other and more drastic methods for dealing with the recalcitrant position. The other point put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) was whether we could review the question of penalties. I can assure him that I have gone into the matter with my colleagues very carefully from time to time. I say publicly that the best thing which can happen for us is to get the men or women to work. If the magistracy of the country use the system of binding over and the man or woman concerned obeys, that is much preferable for me. If they do not obey, you cannot dispense with the final sanction without interfering with the whole penalties under the Defence of the Realm; my part of the business is only one branch of the Defence of the Realm Regulations, and therefore the penalties that are imposed, the final sanctions under the Acts, must remain the same.
I would ask hon. Members to appreciate the magnitude of this problem, and they will then see the task which the Ministry of Labour has had to perform. You must take this question of the Orders against the background of the whole man-power position. I have sat in this House many times and have heard indirect criticisms of myself and my Department, to the effect that I have not been drastic and ruthless enough. I have seen letters in the Press saying that I have failed, that I am a weakling and that I do not get the war effort going speedily enough. Others criticise me because I am too ruthless. Between the two, I think I am about right. I do not take much notice of either, unless there are facts which call for investigation. I worked out a plan when I became a Minister, and I have refused to submit to clamour during the whole time I have been in office. I do not believe in being diverted from the task I have had to do because some people have got upset about it. The Orders have to be seen against the whole range of the population, and if I give some figures which have never been revealed before, hon. Members will see what my Ministry have had to accomplish as their contribution to the total war effort.
The basis upon which I worked when I first took office was on the population between the ages of 14 and 64. You do find people of over the age of 65 working, but I think the only proper calculable basis is the numbers between those years. The population in the United Kingdom between the ages of 14 and 65 is 33,300,000. In the Armed Forces, Civil Defence and industry—that is, all types of industry, including carrying on the life of the country—the number now employed or occupied is 22,000,000 out of that total of 33,000,000. No country in the history of the world has mobilised its man-power to such a point as we have had to do in this war. There is also this additional point which I would ask the House to appreciate. Of the balance between 22,000,000 and 33,000,000—or, to put it another way, in the 22,000,000, there are not taken into account part-time and voluntary workers, married women with domestic responsibilities—thousands of whom are taking in lodgers and evacuees and giving just as much service to the State as if they were working in a factory, they are rendering a great national service; again private domestic servants are not included, nor are school children and other students over 14, the many thousands of persons giving voluntary unpaid service with the W.V.S., and other organisations, in canteens and nursery schools, and so on; and then there are the people not capable of work through age or other reasons—the sick, the blind and the disabled. There are therefore 22,000,000 men and women effectively occupied out of the total of 33,000,000, excluding all those other classes, which, I venture to suggest, if I had the statistics, would amount to another 2,000,000, probably more.
My final word, therefore, is that the number of cases you can raise against me, the number of prosecutions that have occurred in the mobilisation of the manpower of this country to the present point is infinitesimal. The figures I have given are the best justification of the claim that this great mobilisation of man-power has gone on with scarcely a ripple on the surface of public life, with scarcely a disturbance, with strikes lower than ever they have been in the history of the country since the industrial revolution, with disturbances unknown and with a man-power

production higher than it has ever been in the history of British industry, notwithstanding all the criticisms that may be made against us. All that, together with an Army which, when its chance comes, will demonstrate the power, the character and the courage of the British people; its members mobilised, trained and developed, and their places taken in the world of industry by women, by older or less efficient men, or by a distribution of man-power unprecedented in the history of the country. I could not have done it, neither could any other Minister have done it, except for the underlying principles and administration of the Essential Work Orders, in which we have taken the greatest possible care. We may slip up here and there, but the man-power of this country is now mobilised to such a point that the great test between now and the end of the war is not a test between British and German man-power; it is a test between British and German managerial ability. It is a question of whether industry can show its utmost capacity in the utilisation of this great force. That does not mean that more physical energy must be got out of the people; it means that every possible labour aid must be used in order that their energy may be used to the fullest advantage.

Mr. S. O. Davies: And a vastly improved organisation.

Mr. Bevin: Certainly. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals for having had to crowd this into a very short speech. Perhaps, however, I have lifted the veil a little, enough to enable hon. Members to see the magnitude of the task and of the steps taken to accomplish it.

RETAIL TRADERS.

Lieutenant Butcher: The House will allow me to say how grateful we are to the right hon. Gentleman for the statistics he has given, showing the extent to which the manpower and woman-power of this country have been organised for the furtherance of the war effort. There was a very significant sentence in his peroration, in which he said that this great mobilisation had taken place almost without a ripple on the surface of our industrial life. I believe that that is perfectly right, and in a few moments I intend to dip beneath the surface upon which no ripple appears and show some of the effects in the distribu


tive and retail industry which have resulted directly from this intensive mobilisation of man-power and the diversion of people from the distributive trades to the productive side of the nation's life. It is not a new subject to be raised in this House. I apologise to many Members, knowing how well they are informed and interested in the question of work under the Essential Work Order. But, as the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has said, this is the back benchers' day out, and he will forgive me for having my fling. The topic I am raising is one in which other Members, including the hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. De la Bère) and East Birkenhead (Mr. Graham White), have been concerned. It is a subject in which we are all interested, because so many people in the retail industry are represented by us, and we have our duty towards them.
I find that I raised this subject on 10th April, 1941, following a statement by the present Minister of Production, who was then President of the Board of Trade, and I am glad that on 30th May the Retail Trade Committee was appointed. Two Interim Reports have already been received, and a third is awaited at the present time. The Committee has been rather handicapped in this question of dealing with retail distribution by the absence of a proper census of distribution. The Retail Trade Committee in their second Interim Report referred to this. In the absence of such information, there is a tendency to confused thinking. Let me give one example, which I believe is an entire misconception. In some quarters it is thought that an individual trader, that is, one whose capital and enterprise are locked up in one undertaking, is less efficient than his competitors. I do not believe that to be the case. I believe that had the Board of Trade been more careful before the war in preparing these statistics and getting the information it would have been shown quite conclusively that the individual trader is a most efficient unit of distribution. But we have to get on with this job in the absence of detailed information, and do the best we can.
I shall not make any attack on any other form of distribution agency, certainly not on the co-operative societies, nor on the large stores, nor on the multiple shops. Each of these can speak for themselves and doubtless will do so. They

speak through advertisements in the Press and chairmens' reports and in various other ways. In all these ways they make their views and thoughts known to the people of this country. I intend to try and put the case of the difficulties of the individual trader, and by that I mean the efficient individual trader. There is no question of asking for protection for the inefficient man or of suggesting that because a man happens to be a small man he should be kept in business, however inefficient he may be. Certainly not. My plea is that this body of the community with whom I am concerned shall receive proper attention, and attention in time. The retail trade has, on the whole, stood up very well to the incidence of war. Indeed many traders have had a far larger measure of prosperity than they dared to think was coming to them in the opening days. That has been due, first, to more regular and larger wages which in many cases have rightly been spent, I think, on the children, the home and greater personal comfort.
In this picture of general prosperity which I think has obtained up to now there are black pages which cannot be overlooked. Take the trader on the South-East coast. How differently he has been situated from a trader in a reception area. The South-East coast was first a reception area; then the population was removed. Now the trader's important seasonal trade is shorn away from him by the area being scheduled as a Defence area. On the other hand, take the position in a safe and remote area such as the Lake District, where the trader, through no enterprise or initiative of his own, has had his potential market increased. New customers have come swimming in without any exertion on his part. Differences between district and district have been, are, and must be, affected by the war. The individual trader in an area has not had the same chance in standing up to the incidence of war as have those distributive organisations which have been able to deflect goods and personnel from the hard-hit areas from which people have gone to the more prosperous areas. There is very deep concern indeed about the future. The shelves are getting emptier, the stocks are not coming in the big parcels in which they used to come, the wholesalers are constantly reducing them. Only to-day, quite rightly, there are further restrictions in the supply of commodities,


so that more people may be placed into actual productive work connected with the war.
I do not believe in beating about the bush in these matters. I say to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade that there is a very widespread feeling that the Government as a whole favour the large unit. Government institutions like to deal with central organisations. They like an organisation with a large office, that can employ expert guidance, with excellent secretaries, with good professional advice. They rather like to conduct discussions by the courtly interchange of memoranda, the one to the other. They do not like the bluff methods of the market place, where a man takes another man's word because they are friends. I am sure that when he replies the Parliamentary Secretary will say "No" very loudly and emphatically. Let me ask him to examine one or two cases. Take the Controllers appointed by the Ministry of Supply, who are in the main the salaried representatives of the large corporations. Let him turn back the pages of the OFFICIAL REPORT and see how many times the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings has had to answer questions about Wimpeys at a time when plant and personnel of smaller contractors were unemployed.
Let him have a word with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport. If two parcels of the same weight are despatched from the same manufacturer to two shops in the same town, one of them a multiple shop with an overriding arrangement with the railway company, and the other to an ordinary individual trader, do they pay the same rates of carriage? I think you will find some difference in that. I am glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food in his place. On the whole, I think that the Ministry of Food have been pretty good in this matter, though not 100 per cent. as they should have been, but they have been much better than the Board of Trade. I hope there is no truth in the suggestion in the "Daily Express" to-day that there is to be put forward any proposal which will put hundreds of thousands of small milk retailers out of business.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Major Lloyd George): Let me say at once that there is no truth whatever in that report.

Lieutenant Butcher: I am very grateful to my right hon. and gallant Friend for that assurance. I felt sure that he was too wise a Parliamentarian to forget the experience of the present Postmaster-General in dealing with the milkmen. But he has made his mistakes. I brought to his notice the question of the distribution of oranges. Of the oranges which went to a certain area there was a special earmarking given to one multiple store. I do not see why my right hon. and gallant Friend should allow the local food committees to permit these multiple stores, as they have done, suddenly to start selling onions at a time of shortage. In regard to the points rationing scheme, he has made another mistake, which I hope he will correct. He made a mistake when he allowed shops which had not sold points-rationed commodities to start doing so. I can understand some of the reasons; I can see that it would secure a greater use of the labour, and perhaps make an alternative food supply available inside the same shop. But I do not like the way this has gone.
I see the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. E. Walkden) in his place. He raised the question of some of these points-controlled goods being sold below the controlled price. I am sure that that is happening. A certain firm in the north of England sells tins of Libby's sausage meat at 2s. 1d. a lb. The wholesale price, packed, is 2s. 1¼d., and the retail maximum price is 2s. 6d. Who are the philanthropists; and who pays for it? I say, quite frankly, that the thought of re-registration is in the minds of these people. They want to attract the public for re-registration purposes, and for the period after the war. They say, "We cannot spend what we used to spend on advertising, because the newspapers will not give us the space. We cannot spend what we used to spend in various ways. But let us do this; it will not cost us anything, because we shall save on E.P.T." Let us be fair to the Ministry of Food. Their system has helped, in the main, the ordinary grocery covering a wide range of commodities, and there has been an increasing tendency for the people of this country to register with the general


grocery. I think my right hon. and gallant Friend would be doing a good thing if he would suggest, by public advertisement, at the time of re-registration, that that sort of thing should take place. [Interruption.] He says that he must be impartial, Let me commend it then to the "Daily Express." It is not a bad thing to suggest that people should go to one shop for their commodities. It would mean a saving of time for the purchaser, a saving of time for the assistants, and the pushing of traffic off the public service vehicles, by getting people to shop in the stores or in the co-operative society, near their place of business or their place of living.
The Board of Trade, I am bound to say, has not so good a reputation. Take, for example, the question of clothing. Only last Tuesday there was, in the "Daily Telegraph," a complaint by the Federation of Merchant Tailors that the fixed prices of utility clothing had played into the hands of the multiple firms. Those firms can manufacture at prices with which the individual craftsman cannot possibly compete. These are the people who, by the enormous contracts placed with them for-Service clothing, have had their survival fully assured. The big firms have been cutting hundreds of thousands of garments on what we can call pre-austerity fashions, to be made up in the coming months. The tailors in Boston, in Spalding, and elsewhere, wherever they may be, are affected by these restrictions imposed by the Board of Trade. It is not, I believe, done deliberately. The Board of Trade have no malice! I do not believe that they think about these things, and about how the small man will be affected. They get a memorandum, they have it approved by the economists, they make an Order; then, rather ruefully, they see the results. We all know that there is a limitation of the goods available for distribution. The manufacturer is, rightly, limited by quota as to the amount he may make. There the Board of Trade stops. Why should not the retailer have the right to a quota of the manufacturer's quota? One of the more sinister things is the way these stores are now selling a far wider range of goods than before the war. It is true that, under the Location of Industries Order, this has been stopped; but it has happened too late. I took the trouble this morning to go into one of these stores. Over the door was the

notice, "3d. and 6d. Stores." There are gramophone records there at 2s. 3d. each, and ladies' overalls at 5s. If the quota of these things had been fairly distributed between retailer and retailer, this firm would not have been able to cut into the markets for these goods, for the simple reason that it did not have a pre-war trade in them.
I make a plea to my hon. and gallant Friend to recognise the value of the individual trader and his real worth in the make-up of the country. I see the Leader of the House present. We are all grateful to him for his great devotion to duty. We thank him for the inspiring messages he gives on the wireless. He does not disguise his Socialist views: there is no reason why he should. There is no reason, either, for me to disguise my belief in free enterprise. I believe that the man living in the town where he was born, in the shop which his father had before him and which he wishes to pass on to his son, should be one of the most valuable assets in our national life. Certainly such men are making their contribution. Whom shall we call as a witness? Let us call the Minister of Home Security. Let us ask him, "Sir, how would your wardens' service fare if we were to strip from it all the men engaged in retail trade? How would your fire service, your ambulance service, and your other voluntary services, fare?" The answer is that this section of the community is doing its share, and more, in carrying the burden. If we are to have this concentration of trade, as we must, we have to make quite sure that we preserve what is worth preserving, and scrap what is not.
I referred to one of these stores which I was in this morning. I well remember those black days when the unemployment figures in this country were over 2,000,000. This store—Woolworths—was making enormous profits, running into millions, and was employing girls three days a week and permitting them to draw unemployment benefit at the local branch of the employment exchange for the remaining three days of the week. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster says that it is true. It is true, and it is within the knowledge of everybody. Is a firm like that worth preserving in the new England that we are going to build? I went into their shop to-day. There were commodities laid on the counter and behind the counter stood young women that my right hon. Friend the Minister of


Labour could make use of in the war effort. There a light is burning that should be extinguished. This would ease the problem of my hon. and gallant Friend, who is to reply later, and all the goods on the counter could be distributed to other shops. We ought not to have any talk about preserving the balance between the big man and the little man. My hon. and gallant Friend and I crossed swords on this matter in Parliament last year. He said that I was death to the big man. Not many of them have died since, but does not the Government policy in any case mean death to the little man?
When the individual shopkeeper is called up for National Service he has to go unless he can show two things. What are these two things? The first is that his business is essential in the national effort. I am not going to grumble at the Ministry of Labour. I have made representations to them on behalf of shopkeepers in my widely spread constituency. They have done a very good and sympathetic job of work in the Ministry of Labour. It is easy to kick Ministry of Labour officials, but they are dealing with human nature, and they have done a jolly good job of work. The second thing is that the individual shopkeeper can get postponement on account of personal hardship, which is frequently given to him so that he can dispose of his business. It is not good enough to expect the small man to go and fight and allow the big stores, the multiple chain stores and the co-operative society to remain in business, because when you have put the little man out of business he loses his all. If you shut down a department in a big store, they are ready to open again as soon as there is labour available, and when they close down a redundant branch, they are able to increase their profits and the goods are available in the other branches that remain open. I know that there is a lot that can be said for that, but the spirit in the small individual is worth preserving. I was reading not long ago a letter which appeared in the "Birmingham Mail" on quite a different subject, written by Sir Ernest Conning, a former Lord Mayor. It said:
Difficulties in employment groups require an intensified drive at the present time because of the operation of the concentration of industry removing workers from a small concern, where usually the spirit is good, to

larger concerns, where the difficulties of carrying on savings are greater.
I do not know what the remedy of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will be on this matter. I think it will lie along the lines of licensing—probably some system that will prevent the great financial corporation from coming into a country town and stripping the living from a dozen or half a dozen businesses may be instituted. It is a problem that has to be dealt with, and dealt with very soon indeed. The Board of Trade have had one lesson on how easy it is not to interpret public opinion correctly. I refer to the proposed fuel rationing scheme. The slight ripple on the waters that the fuel scheme has caused will be as nothing to what will occur if we do not secure at a very early date some assurance that these grand people, these small traders, are to receive a certain amount of consideration from the Government. They have full confidence in the Prime Minister, in the Leader of the House, and in the Minister of Labour, but it is temporarily shaken in the President of the Board of Trade. Nevertheless, they have confidence in the Government as a whole and believe that the Government will not let them down. They will fight and make any sacrifice on behalf of this country. All that they ask is that they shall have a chance of carrying on their businesses, so that their sons and daughters, who are now wearing the King's uniform, shall be able to come back and have the chance of following them on. It will be recognised by the Government, as it is recognised by "The Times" newspaper, and by this House, that they are an essential, valuable and indispensable section of the community whom we would lose at our peril and whom we would never be able to replace.

Mr. Leslie: We all listened with interest to the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Holland-with-Boston (Lieutenant Butcher), and certainly I am entirely with him in his plea for the efficient trader, but when he mentioned free enterprise, I was reminded that it used to be said that competition was the lifeblood of trade, but, unfortunately, very often it was the death of the trader. As a one-time worker in the distributive trade, and the son of a grocer, I am naturally interested in the subject of trade, and my sympathy goes


out to the genuine trader, to the man who has served his time and has then become his own master. But with the growth of the multiple firms, on the one hand, and the co-operative societies, on the other, the chances of the one-man trader have become more and more difficult. Many of them would be far better off as managers for these multiple firms or cooperative societies. In addition to that form of competition there is the competition that he has to contend with of those who carry on businesses to implement earnings in other occupations and these so-called traders have always been the stumbling-block to any sort of reform. There were far too many shops in pre-war days, and the need for a licensing system was very obvious. Therefore I hope that the Government will prosecute their inquiries in this direction and adopt a proper licensing system, whereby all the needs of the district will be considered and licences granted only to the genuine and efficient traders.
One of the evils that arose out of the last war was the way in which ex-Service men were swindled out of their savings. There were gangsters and tricksters who cajoled them into taking shops and entering into businesses of which they had had no experience, and thousands did this, with unfortunate results. I know of the competition that we had with them over the question of early closing and the restriction of Sunday trading. These men of no experience, if they had kept open the whole of the seven days in the week, would have found it impossible to have obtained a living. Some people imagine that anyone can be a shopkeeper, but that is a big mistake. To be successful one must have efficient trading. He must understand the seasons and seasonable lines; he must study the whims of customers, which is sometimes very difficult; he has to have the patience of Job and the wisdom of Solomon; in fact, he has to be all things to all men and twice that to women. Another evil which resulted from the last war was the boom in the amalgamation of firms. In some cases 5s. shares jumped to 25s., and in others 1s. shares rose to 18s. 6d. Workers were sacrificed. There was compensation to directors for loss of office, but there was no compensation to workers for loss of employment. Old and faithful servants were discarded; men of ability and

personality who had helped to build up very prosperous businesses were thrown on to the scrap-heap.
I know that the lot of many small traders is not easy. Many are in dire straits through the loss of customers or the destruction of their shops. Wholesale firms are naturally careful in advancing credit. In many cases their money is asked for on the spot instead of there being the usual three-monthly accounts. I believe that compensation could be paid to traders for loss of business, and in this connection might I suggest one method which might meet the case? Under the Scottish Licensing Act, 1930, licensed traders contributed to compensate fellow-traders for loss of licences. This worked well and might with equal success be applied to present circumstances for loss sustained by traders through the war.
Having said something about compensation for traders, what about the position of assistants who have lost their situations in similar circumstances? If compensation is considered right for traders, surely it is equally right for workers whose livelihood has gone. The Military Service Act, I know, lays it down that there is an obligation to reengage workers on their discharge from the Forces, but where shops have been destroyed and others closed, what chance will there be for assistants to get their jobs back? I have a vivid recollection of what happened after the last war. Firms had reorganised their business and were loth to dispense with the women who had served them well during the war. Thousands of men never returned to the distributive trades. To-day the Shop Assistants' Union has over 23,000 male members serving with the Colours, and, naturally, I am concerned as to the fate of those who may be spared to return after the war. In considering the case which has been presented to the House to-day on behalf of the small trader, may I appeal to the Government not to forget the shop workers who are this moment risking life and limb on behalf of their country?

Mr. Doland: I rise to speak to-day because I have had experience of the distributive industry for over 40 years. In fact, I am at the present moment a shopkeeper, I represent, as president, the London and Suburban Traders' Federation, which comprises


a number of retail concerns and associations throughout London, and I am also a member of the board of management of the National Chamber of Trade, which comprises chambers throughout the Kingdom. I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Holland-with-Boston (Lieutenant Butcher), and I agree in the main with everything he said. He went into much detail. I do not propose now to go into quite so much detail but to confine myself more to the pamphlet I have in my hands, which the the second Interim Report of the Committee which was set up by the Government. The retail traders of the country have the sympathy, I think, of every party in this House. That sympathy has been shown repeatedly, both in speeches and in Questions, and while it is very nice to receive sympathy, it does not go far enough. The President of the Board of Trade only a day or two ago stated that in his opinion retail traders were the backbone of the country. It was very nice to hear him acknowledge it, but up to now we have had only sympathy and very little practical help.
Twelve months ago—I think it was on 13th May, 1941—the then President of the Board of Trade, who is now the Minister of Production, informed the House that it was his intention to set up a Committee to advise him on this subject. I want to emphasise that date. He used these words in his statement as to the terms of reference of the Committee:
To examine the present problems of the retail trade in goods other than food, having regard both to the immediate needs of the conduct of the war and to the position after the war, and to report.
I draw the attention of the House especially to the words—
To examine the present problems … and to report
When one considers what was said then and what we have received, it causes one furiously to think about the slow, cumbersome and even dilatory method of a democratic Government in setting up a Committee to deal with what was then called an immediate problem. Now there has been brought forth, after much labour by the proverbial mouse, this second Interim Report. We are still awaiting the final Report. The Minister of Production, as President of the Board of

Trade, also used these words when he announced the setting-up of this particular Committee:
In conclusion, I would like to make it clear, first, that the appointment of this committee is intended to expedite the study of those urgent and important problems."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th May, 1941; col. 1069; Vol. 371.]
The Committee are still sitting and expediting the study of those urgent problems.

Mrs. Tate: I am sure the hon. Gentleman would wish to be absolutely accurate. He said the Committee sat for one year before they produced the proverbial mouse in the shape of two Interim Reports. [HON. MEMBERS: "Two mice."] I would like to point out that the second Interim Report was produced in under nine months. I would also like to remind the hon. Member that when he came to give evidence before the Committee, all he did was to listen to his own speech, and then leave the room.

Mr. Doland: I would point out that on that occasion I had a very urgent engagement in the House and had to leave. I informed the Chairman that I would have to leave immediately after speaking as a representative, and it was agreed that I should do so. To continue my remarks, thousands of small shopkeepers lost their life's savings in those 12 months, and they have little hope of ever regaining their livelihood in shops of their own after the war is won. As has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Holland-with-Boston, these traders have willingly endeavoured, to the best of their ability, to cope with all the restrictions that have been imposed, such as the curtailment of supplies. I submit that they have received little assistance from the Government in the matter of safeguarding their living, and particularly their future.
The hon. and gallant Member for Holland-with-Boston emphasised the position that these traders would be in after the war. I want to speak of their present position. Cannot something be done for them? The second Interim Report, which I hope hon. Members have read, throws the whole of the onus of solving the problem on to the retail traders themselves. Three suggestions are made in that Interim Report. The first is that the shopkeepers should hang on no matter what happens; the second is that they should attempt to


combine with fellow traders; the third is that they should close down for the duration of the war. Those three suggestions were contained in a questionnaire that was sent round to all retail traders for the purpose of ascertaining their opinions on these matters. Dealing first with the third suggestion, that they should close down for the duration of the war, I would point out that that process has been going on since 1939, and has been accelerated particularly during the last 12 months. I feel that this suggestion may be dismissed from my arguments.
With regard to the second suggestion, that they should attempt to combine with fellow traders—which is outlined by the Committee as being their favoured suggestion—it is, in my opinion, not a practical proposition, except in very rare cases, such as the highest class of bespoke tailoring, the highest class of bespoke boot-making, and high-class dressmaking. It is suggested that the traders who are allowed to remain open should compensate those whose business is closed down. The suggestion is termed by the Committee the marriage of trades, but in the distinctive trades I have mentioned, this marriage has already taken place and been successful in peace-time, as well as in war-time. The number of cases in which this solution could be applied in these trades is so small that it is not worth considering. In these trades the solution is capable of being applied only because of the very personal character of the trades concerned and the long credit which they give. But consider the case of a typical shopkeeper in the confectionery, tobacco, and newspaper trades. In many instances, these three trades are combined in one shop under one proprietor. For argument's sake, let us say that in a certain town there are 12 of these traders combining the three trades in one, six in the main street and six in the side streets. If we assume that an order is made by the Government, as suggested in the second Interim Report, that six of the group must close, who is to decide which of the six shall close and which shall go on? It might be that four of the 12 would be of the multiple-shop type. How would a decision be made? Would the Government say that the supplies formerly given to the 12 would in future be given to the remaining six? More important still, would the Government guarantee supplies to the remaining six?
This raises the question of compensation, which is also referred to in the second Interim Report. The question of compensation is a very moot one. If there is to be compensation, from where is it to come? Is it to come from the traders who will remain open? Who will receive the compensation? I submit that in many cases it will not be the shopkeeper, but the landlord of the closed shop, because the shopkeeper will have on his shoulders the onus of a lease or agreement. Will the Government relieve the shopkeeper who has been compelled to close down of that obligation under his lease or agreement? The compensation will be forthcoming either on voluntary or compulsory closing down. To what extent, and for what purpose? It is suggested that the compensation will have to come from the traders who are allowed to remain open, but is it certain that those traders will make the increased profits that will enable them to pay the compensation? Will they be certain of getting the supplies that will enable them to make more profits? Surely, unless it can be proved that increased trade will come to the traders who are allowed to keep open through the closing down of the others, they cannot be expected to pay the compensation. Have they not sufficient burdens already? If the extra supplies are not forthcoming, from what source will the money come?
The problem is far more acute in the case of traders who are covered by coupon sales. The Committee admit that supplies are restricted to at least 50 per cent. of the peace-time requirements. I am in the textile business, and since coupon trading started, the turnover in all my establishments has dropped very considerably. It is not because I have not the supplies, but because sales are restricted. We are told that they are to be further restricted in the future, and there can be no one more unsympathetic regarding restrictions of sales than the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is on about it every day. Is he bearing in mind the decreased margin which is now to be allowed to traders on utility clothes and utility articles? How can we be certain that sufficient extra profit will be obtained by those establishments which remain open to pay compensation to the proprietors of those shops which have been closed?
It has been stated in this House on many occasions that it is the intention of the Board of Trade to assist traders to reopen after the war. How is it to be arranged in regard to this question of the marriage of shops? How are the shops which are closed to be kept in condition so that they can be reopened when the proprietors return from the war? Someone has to look after them, and someone has to pay the rents while they are closed, unless legislation is forthcoming. What about the rentals of these premises which are to remain closed? Is the scheme suggested in this report to be retrospective? How can you deal with the thousands of shopkeepers who have already gone to war? Is the position to be considered from the retrospective angle in connection with the suggestions outlined in the report? I do not like to dwell too much on destructive criticism; I should like to make some constructive criticism. The first suggestion made by the committee is to hang on no matter what happens. Even among the small shopkeepers there dwells that hope which springs eternal, and they are always prepared to go down fighting.

Mr. George Griffiths: How is the shopkeeper going to hang on if he is called up?

Mr. Doland: I am coming to that point, which is a very important one. Is there no help which the Government can give to enable the shopkeeper to hang on? Have they even considered this side of the problem? I am quite certain that the Government could help if they chose to grasp the nettle. The first way in which the Government could help is in regard to man-power requirements. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Holland-with-Boston made much of this point, and we are most grateful to him. Cannot a more sympathetic attitude be adopted in regard to calling up shop personnel who are over 41? The Minister of Labour has issued certain Regulations, but these Orders, if I may call them Orders, of the Minister to the tribunals are decided upon in the breach rather than the observance. Are not the questions put by the tribunals too drastic? I will quote from the report. This is the question which is often put:
Would the local people be deprived of an adequate supply of the commodities which

are essential in war-time if his shop was closed down?
Do not hon. Members think that that is too drastic, and is there no endeavour to be made to help the small trader? Imagine the misery and degradation of a man over 41 who has spent years in building up a small business, when he finds on his release from war service that all has been lost. I do not wish to be unfair to the Minister, who has made a very fine speech to-day. I consider a more sympathetic outlook should be given to the question of man-power and the small shopkeepers. I will give the House an instance, which is typical of many. My hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Higgs) asked a Question in this House the other day, and this is what took place. My hon. Friend asked the Minister of Labour
whether he is aware of the large number of firms that are being closed down in the Birmingham jewellery district due to the withdrawal of labour by his Department; and will he consider dealing a little less drastically with these small businesses, especially those employed mainly on orders for export?
Mr. BEVIN: In accordance with arrangements agreed with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, labour is being withdrawn from firms that have not obtained nucleus status under the Concentration Scheme. This labour is urgently needed for important war employment, and "I regret I cannot agree to vary the present arrangements.
Mr. HIGGS: Does the Minister consider it necessary to call men of the age of 72 and women over 60 for interviews at employment exchanges, even if labour is short? 
The Minister's reply caused a deal of laughter. He said:
Oh, yes. The hon. Member would be surprised at the capabilities of men of 72."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th May, 1942; col. 1859; Vol. 379.]

Major Petherick: Is the hon. Member quite sure of his facts? Surely a man of 72 is not likely to be called up.

Mr. Doland: I see that my hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham is present, and perhaps he will say whether that statement is correct?

Mr. Higgs: It is perfectly correct. One man in my division aged 72 was called to the employment exchange for an interview. Women of over 60 have been regularly called for that purpose.

Mr. G. Griffiths: It was a mistake?

Mr. Higgs: It was not a mistake. The age of the individual was known before he was called up.

Mr. Doland: It tells the story of what is taking place with regard to the small business man who has his life savings at stake, and who will be crushed when he returns from war service. Then there is the more subtle method to close down the retailer which I believe is being used today of withholding supplies, or shall I call it unfair discrimination between the small man and the larger stores? Here lies remedy No. 2 to enable the retailer to hang on, as it is termed in the Report—fairer distribution of supplies by the Government, calculated, I suggest, pro rata on his pre-war turnover. Another point is equality of sacrifice between landlord and tenant. There is none to-day. Cases have come to my notice where landlords have been very generous indeed in endeavouring to keep a trader on his feet by reducing his rent lower than he is bound to pay by his lease or agreement, but in many cases where hardship can be proved the landlord should accept a reduced rent in proportion to the reduction in turnover or, if you please, in the profits of the business. The rating authority should also reduce the rates for the same reason. Some authorities are helping very considerably and, when cases are put before them, are reducing the rates. These proposals would enable a fair and reasonable proportion of shopkeepers to hang on, and their application would be far better than the method that is adopted to-day of scrapping the lot.
I now come to the recommendation in the interim statement by the Liberal Inquiry Committee. Compensation is another moot point, and a very sore point for the small trader. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made it quite plain, and he has reiterated it many times, that in no circumstances will he consider giving compensation to the small trader either to enable him to carry on or to start afresh after the war. The Association of British Chambers of Commerce has issued a report on industrial reconstruction, and one of the recommendations is as follows:
In de-concentration schemes the small man's claim to re-establish himself should be given every encouragement in all branches of trade and industry, and some form of Government financial assistance provided in order to rehabilitate businesses financially exhausted as the result of heavy taxation and expenditure of cash resources.

I trust that this suggestion, which refers to small businesses, will include small shopkeepers. A strong recommendation should be made specifically to add this class of trader who has suffered as much as if not more than any other class of trader. It is surely not the policy of the Government that retailers are to be squeezed out of business and no opportunity given them to start again after the war. "The Times," in a very admirable article on the small shopkeeper problem, said:
All the greater responsibility of the Government for seeing that the small trader gets a fair deal.
That is all that the small trader wants. He has had no fair deal up to now. He has been restricted, constricted and sent out of business, and I hope the Ministry will help him to a greater extent than it is doing at the moment. I have no confidence in the Committee that has been sitting, and I believe that ultimately there is only one channel that can help the small trader, and that is the Government. Only they can implement the means of saving the small trader, who has been acknowledged by the President of the Board of Trade as being the backbone of the country.

Mr. Montague: I am glad the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food is in his place, because I should very much appreciate his personal attention to a point that I want to put. I was for a good many years in earlier life in the retail shopkeeping trade, and I know something about it. I feel that those who are putting up their case for the individual shopkeeper and for the small trader do not themselves appreciate the change that has taken place since the last war, if not over a longer period, in shopkeeping in general, not only small but large. In the days of my experience the shopkeeper had to be something of a skilled man to run a shop, even a small one. He had to know his business. He had to know a good deal about the physical qualities of the commodities that he was dealing with, ways of keeping them in condition and things of that kind. You get very little of that now. It is a question of an underpaid assistant turning round and taking a packet from a shelf behind him, and it is not necessary for him to know much about the commodity. The result is that there are a large number of incompetents who have failed in other walks of life and have come down to sell


ing something, if it is only matches in the gutter, as a last resort, the idea being that they can sell something if they cannot produce anything or carry out any other kind of professional occupation. That has led to a deterioration in the retail trade, especially from the point of view of the individual shopkeeper.
I appreciate as much as the two hon. Members who have spoken the importance of enterprise and the spirit of individuality in the distributive trades, as everywhere else, and I am sorry for their decline, but I think there is something much more fundamental to be considered, and that is why I referred to the presence of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food. This question of production and distribution, which is a war-time question to a great degree, but also a post-war question, is a twofold problem in the nature of the case. We really cannot cut the two things apart. We have to consider the question of distribution from the standpoint of production, and I would put it to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food and to the hon. and gallant Member for Holland-with-Boston (Lieutenant Butcher) that the small distributor or any other kind of distributor, with all the desire and necessity there are for the spirit of enterprise and so forth, cannot in these mechanical and scientific days simply carry on or hang on on the old lines without any consideration to how he is related to the complete economic problem of production and distribution. There must be some kind of organisation. There must be responsibility on the one side and the demand for and the receipt of rights from the Government or elsewhere upon the other. Responsibility, surely, will have to do with the requirements of the population in respect of the commodities which are produced and distributed.
In war-time particularly the problem of nutrition, of keeping the people of the country in a fit state of health, is likely to loom large. We expected it to loom much larger than it has up to the present, but we may find it a great problem before the war is over. It is, however, always a problem. We have a Nutrition Committee, and Sir John Orr has made startling statements with regard to the malnutrition of 20,000,000 of the population of this country. That problem involves the problem of distribution as well as

that of production. We have heard to-day that rationing, restrictions, the telescoping of small businesses and the rest of it have meant interference with private enterprise. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food that it would not be a bad idea if he instituted some kind of committee in his Department, not a committee of the House or anything of that kind, but just a private committee, to investigate the question of distribution in relation to the nutritional necessities of the people. It should be investigated not necessarily upon the lines of private enterprise, or the maintenance of the idea that we must distribute in the old way, fighting for markets and the rest of it, but from the point of view of making at least the most elementary necessities of life a public social service.
I feel that we shall never solve the problem of the retail trade, any more than we shall solve the problem of agriculture, until we approach it from the point of view of the needs of the people and from the point of view of distributing the products of industry among the community that requires them. I know, of course, that we could not apply that principle to large numbers of things that are distributed. The question of the necessities of life is different from that of the luxuries of life. Where a commodity is required for the very existence and nutrition of the people there is just as much logic in making it a public service as there is in making roads or education public social services. The point in doing it that way is that it would guarantee a nutritional standard for the people and it would do away with destitutional poverty. We would take the conclusions of the scientists who have investigated these problems and find out what are the necessities for the maintenance of a nutritional standard. Let the nation have that standard for a start and organise not only the productive but also the distributive trades for the purpose of providing what the people require in order that they shall be physically, mentally and morally efficient citizens of the nation.

Major Petherick: Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman is now advocating the nationalisation of the distribution of all primary foodstuffs, such as beef and bread, and the elimination of private enterprise in the primary retail distribu


tive trades? Is he speaking on behalf of his party, and is that a generally accepted view?

Mr. Montague: The problem is one that from the point of view that I have put has not been considered by my party. Therefore, I am not speaking for them, as I am reminded that this is a Private Members' day, but I am prepared to defend what I am saying before my party at party conferences or anywhere else. With regard to the other part of the hon. and gallant Member's question, in a brief speech it is impossible to deal with the problem in detail. I was not thinking at the moment of more than experimenting in one or two commodities, for instance, milk and bread, which are very necessary commodities and most easily capable of organising in this way. I would take them by way of experiment to see whether the idea would work out economically sound. I have gone into the costs of providing these commodities for the whole community, and I find that it would be possible to supply a nutritional standard to everybody at a lower cost, looked at from a monetary standpoint, than is possible by the present system of anarchy in production and distribution. I should be willing on the proper occasion to prove that point.
I do not want to overload my argument by talking about nationalising the whole of industry or even nationalising the distributive industry. I believe in a good deal of individualism, and I do not want to interfere with the structure of the productive and distributive industries more than is necessary for this purpose. Let the question of nationalisation be decided upon its own merits. Nevertheless, I think it is necessary that the retail and productive industries should face a greater degree of scientific organisation, if necessary largely imposed on them, in future. It cannot be left entirely to pure individualism and individual enterprise at this time of day. The great problem of the future, as John Stuart Mill said in his diary, is how to combine the greatest possible good of the individualist system with the common ownership and exploitation of the means of production and distribution. That is what Mill said more than 100 years ago, and that is the problem to-day for all of us, not merely for Socialists. We have to face some degree of socialisation, because the scientific progress

that has gone on for the last 50 years has been brought to such a focus under war conditions. I commend these ideas to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, not expecting him to accept them offhand, but as a basis for useful inquiry by his Department.

Mr. Ammon: I do not propose to follow my hon. Friend the Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) in his interesting dissertation on distribution in a reorganised society. What we are concerned with to-day are the discomforts and hardships which have been created under the conditions described by the hon. and gallant Member for Holland-with-Boston (Lieutenant Butcher), and I congratulate him upon bringing forward a subject which is of such far-reaching importance to ordinary people. There is apprehension in industry that when this war ends we may find that the large interests are firmly entrenched and all the smaller ones have been wiped out. That is one fear underlying this problem of distribution. The large multiple firms may swallow up the smaller traders, not only to their disadvantage but to the inconvenience of the great mass of the public. One must admit that in time of war there is bound to be greater concentration in industries engaged in distribution, but care must be taken, both from the point of view of maintaining morale and safeguarding the interests of the people concerned, to cause as little disturbance as possible, and we must have regard, also, to the interests of those who are called from their ordinary vocation to carry on war-time industry.
The problem of the elimination of the small shopkeeper is greatly accentuated by the increased call upon women to go into industry. The call-up of women has made a tremendous difference, particularly in constituencies like my own, where a great part of the population are resident working-class people living well away from the large shops. They generally buy in small quantities, and it is a great convenience for them to be able to pop round to the small shops to get their necessities. The fact that so many women are working in factories during ordinary shopping hours increases the difficulties. Another feature of the situation is that many tradespeople are now dealing in goods which they formerly did not handle.


For example, the milkmen and the baker now bring round to the door certain commodities which they did not formerly distribute, and that has had a serious effect upon shopkeepers. Extraordinary problems are arising in connection with the distribution of goods. An hon. Friend of mine was waited upon recently by a deputation of small shopkeepers who complained of loss of trade owing to having been deprived of a certain amount of help in their shops and owing to the petrol restrictions. They were mostly bakers. One result of what has happened is that the big wholesale bakery firms are now delivering over a very wide area—going as far away as Dagenham to Edgware. We know the Scriptural phrase: "As far as the East is from the West." Here the two are certainly being brought into touch with each other, at the cost of a greater consumption of petrol and many other things about which we are enjoined to be careful. And it is all playing into the hands of those with the largest amount of capital, the largest organisations, and killing the industry of the shopkeepers who are situated at the doors of the people. We are concerned to see that the shopkeeper with a small number of registered customers shall be kept within the rationing system, and I hope that the Minister will keep the minimum number of registered customers which a trader must have as low as possible. I know that occasionally abuses have crept in, and that some very small shopkeepers have tried to keep on for the sake of getting supplies for their own families, but that is a risk which can be guarded against. It serves the convenience of working-class people to keep these small shops in existence.
There is a side of this problem which is affected by the calling-up of labour. I will give two instances. One concerns an ex-soldier, over 40 years of age, a widower with a family of six, the eldest 16 years of age and the youngest under 3. He has been running an eating-house in a busy part of south-east London where a good deal of heavy industry is carried on. He has tried to get a woman to undertake the work while he is away. One or two have come, but they have given up the job after a fortnight as being far too heavy. This eating-house supplies as many as 80 midday meals a day to industrial workers. That man has been called up for service,

and though he has appealed to the Hardship Tribunal his appeal has been turned down. He is over 40, he has six young children, and if he goes it means that his business will go to rack and ruin, and, what is more, that a canteen may have to be opened there to meet the needs of the people for whom he has been catering. It is utterly ridiculous. I say that the national interest will suffer. The man is doing far better service at home than he will do if called up—a man of his age, and worried and harassed as he is bound to be by thinking of what is happening to his family and his business. That case is now before the Minister of Labour.
The other case concerns a young woman of 36. She lives with her father, who is a widower and about 76 years of age. To increase his income, which is solely the old age pension, he does a little jobbing gardening. This daughter has looked after her father, and also assisted as a machinist, part-time, in a small shop close by, at the same time giving a little domestic help there. It is a shop kept by two elderly women who make children's underclothing. This young woman has been called up for service. There has been an appeal, but it has been turned down, and I have submitted the case to the Minister. Here is a case where two homes will be wrecked. The old man will be left to look after himself and will be unable to do the little work he does at present, and the small business in which she helped will be crippled, because one of the two women is a permanent invalid and cannot carry on. Those are some of what I call the stupidities operating in the application of this matter. I hope that out of this discussion will come closer consideration by the Departments concerned and that definite instructions and advice will be issued to the officials at the employment exchanges and the hardship tribunals. Not the least among the complaints that we receive is of the highhanded manner of the people in the employment exchanges themselves, on the ground that they act as though they were clothed "in a little brief authority" and intended to exercise it and to show it. I hope that the Minister will issue instructions on this matter also.
There is one other point that I wish to raise. Recently, in Bedford I think it was, a man ran a baker's shop. His two assistants have been called up, and his petrol allowance has been withdrawn. He


is unable to carry on his business and reach the majority of his customers. Another trader has come in from Luton, which is a good many miles away, using petrol and labour, to take away this man's livelihood. The first man is closing down his business. This situation casts a greater burden on the nation at the present time than need be, because people an; deprived of services for which there is a definite use. An hon. Member opposite referred to a suggestion said to have been made that traders should close down for the duration of the war and to the burden borne by traders operating under short leases. If it was possible for a Regulation to be made with regard to rent restriction, releasing people from their rates during the period when their properties are empty, surely a Defence Regulation might be made to relieve traders of the burden of such leases, where such traders are placed in a difficult position. This suggestion might help to mitigate their hardships.
That is all I intend to say. Those are practical points based upon my own experience and brought to me by many constituents. They can be multiplied from every constituency, and they are an indication that we shall not help the national effort if we are not as careful as we can be to maintain people who are in relatively small businesses and who undoubtedly do a great national service in helping to maintain morale among the people who are engaged in other branches of our national effort.

Mrs. Tate: I did not intend to take part in this Debate, because I am the only Member of the House serving upon the Retail Trade Committee. As our third Interim Report has not been published, I thought that it would be grossly improper for me to take part in the Debate. However, there have been allusions by the hon. Member for Balham and Tooting (Mr. Doland) to the second Interim Report, which he has so grossly misrepresented that I feel I have a duty to my colleagues on the Committee to make this House aware of the facts. The hon. Member said that the second Interim Report had made three suggestions as to what the small trader should do. One has only to turn to the Report to see that that is exactly contrary to the facts.

Mr. Doland: On a point of Order. The hon. Lady's misrepresentation of my

speech gives it absolutely and entirely wrong. May I read a passage—

Mrs. Tate: Might I be allowed to finish my speech? As I have not yet said in what way the hon. Member has misrepresented the Report, it is most extraordinary that his psychic power enables him to retort before the allegation has been made. Perhaps he would not mind just waiting a moment. He said that the Report had made suggestions about what the small trader might do. I repeat that the second Interim Report was published solely to give traders as complete a picture as possible of the conditions facing the retail trade in the country at the present time. These conditions were felt to be so serious that it was considered advisable to put them in all their grim-ness before retail traders. The Report made no suggestion on those points. What the Report actually said was:
Hitherto we feel that there has been inadequate realisation of the impending gravity of the situation, and our report is accordingly-directed to an assessment of the facts. These facts speak for themselves; thereafter, the initiation of remedies is a matter for consultation. In the third interim report"—
which is shortly to be published, and which the hon. Member's psychic power so fortunately seemed to make him able to give to the House—

Mr. Doland: On a point of Order. I suggest that the hon. Lady should explain to the House how I have misrepresented the Report.

Mrs. Tate: I will do so, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Member will give me an opportunity. To continue:
the facts show that it may be profitable to consider alternative courses at present open to the small shopkeeper, and to clear the ground for consultation by focusing attention upon what we believe to be the salient issues. The three courses which appear to us to be at prevent available"—
not suggestions as to what the trader should do but courses which, in the present lamentable situation, are available—
are: (1): as he has not infrequently put it himself, he can decide to hang on, no matter what happens; (2): he can try to arrange a temporary working agreement with one or more fellow retailers, or, (3): he can close down either for the duration or permanently.
We have not said that those are the only alternatives at present open to the trader. The object of the Committee was to enable other recommendations to be made. For the hon. Member for Balham and Tooting


to say that those were suggestions as to what the retailer should do by way of stabilising his position was a gross misrepresentation of the Report. The hon. Member said he hoped the whole House had read the Report. Of course, the House has not. If the hon. Member has, his memory is exceedingly bad. Naturally, I sympathise with lack of memory as with any other disability, but I feel there is no excuse for allowing lack of memory to influence hon. Members by representing the Report to the House when hon. Members have it before them and they have only to read it.

Mr. Doland: On a point of Order. I have been accused of misrepresenting a lady, or the Committee.

Mrs. Tate: The Committee.

Mr. Doland: A lady on the Committee.

Mrs. Tate: No, the Committee.

Mr. Doland: My defence is to tell the lady what I said, which was that the second Report—

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Mr. Doland: I want to know where the misrepresentation is, Sir.

Mrs. Tate: Let the hon. Member read his speech and see.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member cannot expect me to take sides in the matter.

Mr. Spens: When the previous references were made to the position of the private trader, I remember that there was the same vehemence as has been used to-day against the machinations of chain stores and other multiple shops. At that time the theme of the attack was the line taken by the hon. Member this afternoon, that when chain stores or multiple shops invade country towns, the ruin of the private trader follows as the night follows the day. The result of that Debate for both of us was that we were called upon to make all sorts of investigations, which we did, and so far from finding that statement to be strictly and accurately true, we were both convinced that many limitations had to be put upon it. In fact, thanks to the advent of large chain stores, many country towns, where there were perhaps a dozen small traders with a very limited

custom, became popular local shopping centres; not only was an immense amount of additional custom brought to the towns, but that custom in course of time was very largely shared by the private traders as well as by the newcomers. Of course, on occasions, the trade of some of the private traders suffered for the time being, but on the whole I do not think that it is an accurate statement to say that in peace-time—I am coming to war conditions in a moment—the private trader cannot live against the chain store or the multiple shop.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: May I interrupt my hon. and learned Friend to ask where the extra trade came from to bless not only the new multiple shop but the private trader as well, and who was doing that trade before?

Mr. Spens: The answer is that people living in the country did not go into that country town to shop until it became a shopping centre, but did their shopping in London, or other big towns, farther away. They now do their shopping in the country town with the assistance of the multiple shops. I am giving an example from my own experience.

Mr. Baxter: It was the village trader who lost the trade.

Mr. Spens: No, they did not shop in the village at all. Before I turn to war conditions, I would like to say one other thing, and it is that we owe a very great debt of gratitude to some of the big stores for what they did following the blitzes on various towns. Although I am a strong champion of the private trader, I do not think that it is right that they should be condemned in this House in war-time without someone expressing gratitude for the way in which, when towns had been descended upon by the enemy and all local shops had been destroyed, they came to the rescue and provided not only food but all the other multifarious articles which householders need if suddenly they have to set themselves up in new homes. In our ports it has been universally acknowledged that assistance has been given, and given generously, by these stores.
Now I want to come to what seem to me to be the real problems we have to face in war-time. The first problem which I want my right hon. and hon. Friends


in front of me to think out is that of maximum prices. The hon. and gallant Member for Holland with Boston (Lieutenant Butcher) gave as an instance, with some heat, a case where a multiple shop had been selling below the maximum price, and said that it was being done for personal reasons, for advertising, to attract new registrations, and so forth. That may have influenced them—I do not know—but there is no doubt whatever that a maximum price fixed at a figure which enables individual and small traders to make two ends meet, if treated as a standard price as it is in nine cases out of ten, enables the larger traders to make very large profits indeed out of what they sell. Maximum prices, therefore, are a matter which need a good deal of consideration in that connection. If a maximum price is fixed which enables only the big trader, be it a multiple store or anything else, to make the two ends meet and make a small profit, it is too low for the small individual trader. If the maximum price is fixed for the small individual trader, you are putting money into the pockets of the big multiple stores, if they treat the maximum price as the standard price. If they sell under the maximum price, as they can do perfectly properly and have clone on a number of occasions, they are open to the charge, which has been made in the House today, that they are undercutting the individual trader and behaving very improperly. It is a problem which requires still more thinking out; what the solution is it is extremely difficult to see, but I warn the House that maximum prices are matters which require consideration.
I now turn to the next point. One of the real difficulties of the small trader, and certainly the one which is commonest in the South-East part of England, in the evacuated area mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Holland with Boston, is this: The small village shopkeeper used to be served, in pre-war days, as a rule by a comparatively small individual wholesaler. The wholesaler had his round of a large number of village stores, and had a different round almost every day of the week. He would bring to the village stores the supplies which the village storekeeper commonly kept. Many of those wholesalers were comparatively young men, and they have nearly all been called up. The bigger wholesalers who have more or

less succeeded them, with or without a little Government or Departmental direction, in the supplying of these small village shops quite frankly do not find it worth while under present conditions to supply those shops continuously. The village storekeeper is getting into difficulties, and is in many cases closing down, very largely because of that flaw in the wholesale distribution to him. That is a problem in connection with certain commodities which I put up to the various Departments represented on the Front Bench to-day.

This question of distribution to the country villages is worth going into. The compulsorily rationed foods find their way there quite all right, but anything beyond them has, in a great number of cases, ceased to find its way to those shops. Of course, if the shops close down, then there is a temptation for some store or other—as a rule not one of the chain stores, but much more frequently the nearest cooperative society—to open up in the village and start to supply it. I feel that it is a matter which requires looking into with sympathy on the part of the Departments.

Now let me raise one last point, not about the shopkeeper, but about the smaller individual in the producing trade, the manufacturing trades in particular. There is, of course, a tendency, there must be the tendency in war, to get your business concentrated in the biggest units. You cannot avoid it. It is quicker and more convenient in every way, and if the job is to produce, and produce quickly, something necessary, it is inevitable that that should be so. On the other hand, there is a feeling that when that is going on the smaller competitor always seems to be the one who has to go out of existence under every concentration scheme. I must be very careful. I see my hon. Friend turns round and frowns at me. I do not say it is a fact. What I said was there there is a general feeling that the small unit cannot stick up for itself as can the big combines and the big units, and I think it is frightfully important that in every concentration, in every case where factories have to be requisitioned for one Department or another, it should be perfectly clear that the bigger concerns have to suffer in proper proportion to the smaller individual concerns and that it must not become common thought or common feeling throughout the country


as I am afraid to some extent it is at the present time, that it is always the small individualist who goes under at the expense of the bigger combines. It is the duty of this House and my hon. Friend who, I know, wishes to do his best, to see that in all these schemes the individualist is protected as much as possible.

Mr. De la Bère: I listened with great attention to the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens). With part of it I agreed; with part of it I did not agree. There is just one point that I want to make on the subject of a guarantee of supplies for the small trader. Undoubtedly this is one of the greatest difficulties which the small trader has to face to-day. The wholesaler in these times of difficult transport and shortage of man-power naturally prefers to deliver to the big chain stores because it is less trouble; he can get rid of the goods in bulk, and it does not involve a great deal of labour. It is only natural that he should do so. But it is as a result of that that the small trader has no goods to sell, and if he cannot sell, he is faced with ruin. This is a matter in which the Government could quite easily assist the little trader, by seeing that a guaranteed supply is available for each individual small trader throughout the country. I hope that those members of the Government who are present will be kind enough to take some notice of what I am saying, because for 12 months, and longer than that, I have studied this matter and gone into it, so far as one can, in very great detail. It is a very complicated and difficult question, and I well appreciate the difficulties of the Government.
I do not wish to say anything unkind, but I feel I must draw attention to the fact that the present Minister of Supply, as President of the Board of Trade did everything possible to assist the small trader. It was really very refreshing. He never spared himself. He took matters into consideration by actually going and investigating himself. I wish to pay him a warm tribute. My right hon. Friend who is now the Minister of Production, when at the Board of Trade, did not, I think, quite realise the problem. I hope that as he is in an important post to-day he will make amends for his past omissions and do what he can to

put things right. When at the Board of Trade he did not pay that attention to this important subject which it warrants. The small trader, as has been so often said, is the backbone of the country. The country cannot get on without him. I have a great quarrel against a certain school of thought which keeps on saying, "Oh yes, but we must win the war first." If there is an infuriating parrot cry, it is that. Surely we can see that schemes are ready during the war for protecting these people. If we do not, there will be nothing but chaos, ruin and misery after the war. Whether the reason for that parrot cry is bone laziness or propaganda, it is not in the national interest to cry it, and I hope we shall have no more of that. Let us try to win the war and at the same time preserve the small trader and home life, family life.
I do not intend to make a long speech. I never do make a long speech, but I have always upheld the cause of the little man and the little woman and the small trader. I once had a delightful tie made with the "Little Man" of Strube of the "Daily Express" on it. Unfortunately, the war came, and I never had the opportunity of displaying this "Little Man" in the House of Commons. After the war is over the House will, I hope, have the opportunity of seeing this "Little Man" in full force emblazoned on my tie. It may sound foolish, but it is very near to my heart. Although I may sound to be speaking with levity, the House will not misunderstand me. I speak from the heart. Anything I can do for the little man or the little woman of this country is a pleasure to do. I do not mind how much trouble or time I spend. I urge the Government to do everything possible. It is no good sitting down waiting for various reports. I do not wish to comment on the Committee which has just done such valuable work, but I urge that the Government should do everything in their power to assist the small trader. By doing so, they will preserve that real family life and tradition which we all cherish in this country.

Dr. Russell Thomas: I should like to enlarge upon a point made by the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) in relation to the concentration of industry, which first sounded the alarm to the private trader. That


alarm was given in the early part of last year. There is not the slightest doubt that the concentration of industry meant that a limited quantity of goods would be available for the small trader. I believe the Government's policy at that time—they have given it up since—was to telescope the small businesses of this country and reduce the number of retail shops. That aroused such alarm that the executive council of the British Chambers of Commerce passed a resolution and that, with many other resolutions passed by Chambers of Commerce throughout the country, gained the sympathy of the public. The council's resolution said that in their view the smaller businesses, whether they were manufacturers or retailers, were vital in the economic structure of the country and that anything tending to the squeezing-out of the small or even medium-sized concerns after the war would be a national disaster. That was confirmed by many correspondents in newspapers. Professor Bowley writing in "The Times" said:
A sound policy of concentrating non-essential industry should not be allowed to degenerate into an attack on small enterprise.
The country was roused and became sympathetic towards the small trader and began to take much interest in what the small trader did for the community. If the House will have patience for a few moments I will try to show what a large part the small trader takes in the retail trade of this country. According to the Distributive Trades Committee in 1935 there were, in this country, 1,171 cooperative societies. There were 91 chain stores. The co-operative societies in 1935 did 9 per cent. of the retail trade, the chain stores did 21 per cent. of the retail trade, but the small trader did 70 per cent. of the retail trade of this country in that year. I make that point to show how important the small trader is. Let me translate that into terms of shops. The co-operative societies have approximately 12,000 shops, the chain stores 27,500 shops, and the retail traders 960,500 shops. Let us assume that the retail trader has at least two people dependent upon him; at that rate about 3,000,000 people are engaged in, or dependent on, retail trade. We must hesitate before we injure these people, who have played such a large part in our social history. So, very quickly, the Government changed its tune in regard to the telescoping

of small businesses. The late Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, in this House, went so far as to say:
Whilst logically, and merely on economic grounds, a case can be made out for the elimination of the small distributor, such a policy has no attraction for me on social grounds.
He proceeded to say that hundreds of thousands of people who were of social value to the community were dependent on this way of livelihood, and that, even at the risk of a certain amount of economic loss to the community, it was worth while keeping that section in being for the social advantage to be gained in other directions. The late President of the Board of Trade, now Minister of Production, when he brought in the Bill for the Concentration of Industry, also made certain remarks which showed that he, too, was expressing Government sympathy with the small trader. He said about the Government's telescoping policy that the relative balance between the share of trade which was now enjoyed by the multiple stores and co-operative societies and that enjoyed by the small traders should not be disturbed. It was said that he should take the course of diverting trade from the multiple stores to the small traders. He replied, "I must not do that." But he said, in regard to statements that had been made about the creation of monopolies, that if that were true he would regard it as a very serious criticism In actual practice, the Government adopted a policy which was altogether the reverse.
I will give one or two instances. One very important example is the call-up under the National Service Bill. Although the Government paid lip-service in these ways to the retail trader, they managed to destroy a large proportion of the small traders of this country. We all know that the small trader has perhaps spent a lifetime, and his resources, in his small town, building up a business. Perhaps his family has helped him. He is suddenly called up for military service. Admittedly, he could claim exemption on grounds of hardship; he often had his call-up deferred for six months, and then for another six months. But after that he had to close his shop unless he could get somebody to help him; and we all know how hard it is now to get such help, apart from the fact that, probably, the person engaged will not understand the conditions of the


business and cannot be relied upon to take so much interest as the small trader himself does in the customers. The Minister of Labour, in December, 1941, attempted to ameliorate this position. He said that they could appear again before the hardships tribunal, and get some relief. But the damage has been done. Hundreds, yes, thousands of these people have closed their shops.
The hon. Member for North Camber-well (Mr. Ammon) referred to a case in Camberwell. I know of a very similar case in London. A small trader, aged 41, with two or three children, was called up for the National Fire Service. He had to put up his shutters, and he now spends three-quarters of his time playing billiards, waiting for the blitz, and worrying himself to a shadow. He has now been able to obtain, temporarily, some indifferent help. Here is the case of a butcher in my own constituency. It is a very tragic case. He has had a serious operation. He has two sons, one of whom was called away on military service. He did not grumble about that. He himself was not able to work, but he had two or three employees. They were called away on military service. He had one son left, who carried the business on his shoulders. That son is being called up for the Army on this very day. That means that the shop will have to close. The man has 1,200 customers. The Ministry of Food concurred, I believe, in the deferment of the second son's call-up to June last year, and then for a further period to November; but when a further application was made, the letter received from the Ministry of National Service said:
The Minister of Food was consulted, and fully concurred with the decision that no further deferment should be granted.
So it seems the Minister of Food also believes that the small trader is not worth conserving. That is the only inference I can make from this letter.

Sir Percy Hurd: Did they give any reason?

Dr. Thomas: No reason whatever was given in this letter. All that was said was that on this occasion they concurred with the decision of the man-power board. In other ways, the actions of the Government rather than their implied policy, are injuring the small trader. We have the establishment of British Restaurants

throughout the country. That has made it extremely difficult for the small trader. British Restaurants are being increased in number almost every week. They have opportunities for buying in the cheapest market at discounts which the small trader cannot allow. There is the N.A.A.F.I. I do not want to go into that, but the Board of Trade has made regulations in regard to N.A.A.F.I., and it thinks that by its regulations it has done the small trader a great deal of good. The Board of Trade said:
The Board of Trade arrangement for N.A.A.F.I. has the effect of restricting the purchases of this organisation to the level of their sales for the period October-December, 1940, increased in proportion to the increase of the Fighting Services since that date, but reduced in proportion to the current sales quota.
It must be clear that the clientele of N.A.A.F.I. is increasing every day, and that, because of the call-up, the customers of the small trader must decrease. Here is another way in which the small trader has been injured. The Ministry of Food has set up what might be described as a black market in fishing. On the North-East coast the Air Minister has actually chartered vessels for fishing purposes and they supply fish direct to the officers' messes. The small trader, consequently, has not the same quantity of fish, nor is he enabled to make the small profit that he used to make, now that the Ministry of Food has come into the business itself. The basic dates of the Location of Business Order, 1st December, 1940, and 23rd October, 1941, had a most disastrous effect on the chemist. During that period, in spite of the promise of the patent medicine trade that it would not take advantage of the situation, and in spite of the fact that there was a paper and a cardboard shortage, it brought out special articles ready to flood the chain stores of the country on the repeal of the Patent Medicine Duties on 2nd September, 1941. One branch in Central London, within a day or two of 2nd September, had about 60 preparations being sold by unqualified assistants, some on the lines of the kind of thing which we had fought to prevent being sold in this reckless fashion. That is what happened. They ask simply that the Location of Business Order should be made retrospective, thereby eliminating this unfair competition. I could go on for a considerable time in regard to the in-


justices which have occurred and the policy of the Government which is doing so much harm to the small trader, in spite of the lip service it has paid.
The Government ought to bear in mind one or two propositions. Perhaps I may read them instead of giving them in my own words, as it is so much easier. Before legislation for the further direction of the distributive trade is produced, members of the trade should have the opportunity of examining and criticising the proposals concerned by their national and local trade organisations. A scheme of registration and licensing of shops should be introduced forthwith, so that no new distributive unit shall come into being, except with official sanction, through the local chamber of commerce or other appropriate local trade association. A national contribution scheme, which I think is so important, should be introduced immediately whereby out of periodic contributions made by all shops throughout the country, grants should be made to any trader who, following the introduction of the registration scheme, is, as a result of war, put out of business. In addition to that, an undertaking should be given that the relative balance of trade, now being enjoyed by the multiple stores and the co-operative societies and that which is being enjoyed by the private trader should not be disturbed. Those are very reasonable propositions. The National Service Act, too, should be administered with far greater sympathy. The hardship of the National Service Act is that it is falling so heavily and harshly on the small trader, whereas the multiple shops can get away with it every time. They still find assistants to keep their doors open and they filch the customers of the small trader while he is away fighting for his country.
I am not one of those who pretend to worship the State. I have always regarded the State as the servant of man, and not as his master. The State was originally founded to protect those thrown together by nature from the foreign foe and from one another. That these functions should be enlarged with the evolution of modern society is right and proper, but that the State should have supreme power over the life of the individual is contrary to Divine guidance and subversive of human happiness. I cannot subscribe to such a doctrine. It is interesting to recall that the

rising price of wheat during the Peninsular war made it more profitable to rent a large than own a small farm: the result was the disappearance of the remnants of the English yeomanry. So, too, the Government's policy in this war, if continued, will destroy the small retailer who has rendered such useful service to the community in the past. It is better to lose economically than to be destroyed spiritually. There are those in our midst, even in His Majesty's Government, who are already, in the name of reconstruction and under the pretence of avoiding chaos when peace comes, preparing the way for the continuation of the control by red tape which would eventually strangle the community. I trust that I may never live to see it. Let the right hon Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade—I wish he had been here to-day—remember the words of Burke at a time when the menace was but in its infancy. [Interruption.] I do not think the hon. Member should interrupt Burke. He said:
The great inlet by which a colour for oppression has entered into the world is by one man's pretending to determine concerning the happiness of another.
Let the right hon. Gentleman beware that he is not the one man pretending to determine concerning the happiness of another, by acting in such a way that for all time he destroys the small trader.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Major Lloyd George): Did I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that he was informed that British Restaurants were allowed to purchase commodities at terms more favourable than their competitors?

Dr. Thomas: I am informed that they can buy at such a low price that the small trader cannot possibly offer his goods at such a low rate.

Major Lloyd George: That is not my information and I shall be very grateful if the hon. Gentleman will give some concrete examples.

Dr. Thomas: That is a general principle. I have not brought specific examples with me, but I have no doubt I could obtain them.

Major Petherick: I was profoundly interested, as no doubt was the rest of the House, with the quotation of the hon. Member from


that great statesman Mr. Edmund Burke, but I feel that it was not wholly apposite to the present discussion. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said, but there was one part of his speech which hardly seemed to stand. He was deploring, as we all do, the rather rapid disappearance of the small retail trader and distributor and was putting forward two or three measures to help that disappearance to take place. One was that the Associated Chambers of Commerce were to issue licences before any new trader could start at all. That means that he envisages a large increase in the number of retail traders rather than a decrease, which most of us deplore.

Dr. Russell Thomas: It is only during the period of the war. Any chain store wishing to start a new business during the war period should have a licence. I suggest it merely as a means of protecting the small trader during the war.

Major Petherick: I am sorry if I misunderstood my hon. Friend. I do not think anybody would start a new shop in war-time unless he was entirely deranged. There is one point I would like to mention, which was put up by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens). I remember that before the war he used to join in the whoops of joy on behalf of small traders against the multiple and chain shops. I think it is possible to exaggerate on both sides. We can say that chain stores fulfil a quite useful function, but I think he was going a little bit too far when he suggested that the advent of chain stores in the country was bound to help the rest of the tradesmen because it attracted crowds into the town, so that everyone made more money and was happy. If that were true, it should be shown that there was no disappearance of the small man at all, but I looked up to-day a speech which I made in 1937 in the House during the course of an abortive Bill brought forward by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Captain Balfour). Everybody knows that the small trader has been disappearing for the last 40 years. I quoted during the course of that speech a letter which I received from a man in Coventry, which showed what had been happening during the last 50 years in that city. If I may, I would like to read that letter again. It said:

Within approximately a quarter of a mile of the business centre of the town I find that in 1880 there were 323 independent shopkeepers in the area. Since that date 292 have died or closed, leaving only 31 independent traders in that area at the date of my investigation. In other words, in 1880 there were 100 per cent. independents; in 1881, when the first branch of a chain store opened, there were 99 per cent. independents, and in 1933 only 26 independents out of 300.
That shows what has been happening in one city, and I think all of us remember that a similar thing has been going on in our local towns. Personally, I look upon it as bad and dangerous. I fully agree that many chain stores are well managed, but sometimes they are doing a considerable amount of harm. We have heard not only about retail distributors but also about the small and middle-sized manufacturers and producers. They, also, have been passing through an extremely difficult time, both before and since the war broke out, and I think the Government ought to do everything they possibly can to prevent their being forced out of business. They have died very hard. Oddly enough, during the slump of 1929–32, when one would have thought that the strong and powerful financial organisations would have survived, it was the smaller firms, employing under 500 people, which stood the strain best. That we can prove by figures.
Before the war the small producer and retailer-distributor found conditions difficult enough. It was not only the chain and multiple shops they had to compete with but conditions in general—heavy taxation and all too often periods of bad trade. Since the start of the war the position of the distributor and producer has become infinitely worse. He is extremely short of staff in practically every case. That is inevitable, because men and women have been called up for the Armed Forces or some other form of Government service, and he has had a hard struggle, with the few who have remained, in paying wages, because he has often found that Government or municipally-controlled enterprises of various kinds are offering wages to those who are in the market which he cannot possibly afford to pay. Not only is he struggling through loss of staff, but he cannot get anyone to replace them. Then, of course, he has to spend an immense amount of time in filling in forms, on coupons and on every


kind of paper work, which the war has so much increased. He is crushed down by the enormous weight of taxation, which, of course, he shares in common with the rest of the community, and another difficulty facing him is that Government contracts rarely go to the small producer or manufacturer.
I know that members of the Front Bench, with the best intentions in the world, say they are doing their best to give the small man a "do," but time and time again I have been written to by my constituents, both before the war when rearmament was beginning, and since, who say that local work is nearly always given to some large and favoured firm. That is not to say that there is any hanky panky or naughtiness on the part of Government Departments; it is simply that, being a large firm, it can do much more work and, consequently, is easier to deal with. But none the less it is extremely hard on, say, a small local builder to see a contract given to a firm which may send down representatives and workmen from another part of the country. In conclusion, I would like to ask the Government to do all they can to help small local firms. So far as after the war is concerned, I think that in the main, if it is possible to come back to pre-war conditions, the small trader would welcome it rather than the present position. Negative advantages may be obtained from future Governments rather than positive disadvantages. So, I hope the Government will make a declaration, in stronger language than they have done in the past, to the effect that it is not part of their policy to push out of business or touch small traders, whether retail or wholesale, that they look upon them as part of the backbone of the country and that they will do everything they possibly can to assist them.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterhouse): I think it would be to the satisfaction of the House if I started by giving the assurance that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) asked for in the last sentence of his speech. I can assure the House that it is not part of the Government's policy to crush or hamper the activities of the private trader. Rather is it our definite endeavour to try and find ways in which we can help him to meet the

serious problems with which we know he is faced.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth put the matter in, good perspective when he referred to this as an old tendency and not an entirely new problem. One is rather apt to feel that when a manifestation becomes very acute, it is something completely new which has arisen. This tendency, regrettable as some of us think it is, less regrettable as others think it is, is not a new tendency, but there is not the smallest doubt that the tendency has been tremendously accelerated by the war. It is in some ways unfortunate that this Debate, interesting as it has been, had to take place at this juncture, for we are, as the House is aware, awaiting the third report of the Committee on Retail Trade. That Committee has sat for some 12 months. I rather resent the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Balham and Tooting (Mr. Doland) about the slow and dilatory methods which were employed by the Committee. These ladies and gentlemen have devoted many hours of their time freely and willingly to investigating this problem fully. I think it is very unfair that an hon. Member, especially one who has, with regard to the retail trade, the position of the hon. Member for Balham and Tooting, should speak as he did about the activities of the Committee.
It is always easy to tear to pieces other people's suggestions. My hon. Friend dealt extremely hardly with the second interim report of the Committee. Three tentative suggestions were made in that report, but I want to emphasise that the second interim report was a fact-finding report and not a recommending report. It did not set itself out to recommend solutions at that stage. It set out the facts as they had been disclosed to the Committee, and the Committee said that they were proceeding to the next stage, which was an endeavour to enunciate some useful lines of action for the benefit of the trade. The hon. Member, with all his knowledge, was not very helpful. As far as I could understand him, he had no direct suggestion to make as to the lines along which we should move, other than Government assistance. Of course, if one looks on the Exchequer as a bottomless distributor of largesse into which any section of the community can dip their hands, we would have no prob


lems, and nobody would have greater pleasure than my right hon. Friend and myself in dispensing such sums to this and to other sections of the community who have been most hardly hit by the war.

Mr. Doland: I made three suggestions in my speech.

Captain Waterhouse: I will come to them later. But the Prime Minister laid down very clearly some time ago to what extent the Government were prepared to help. I have already quoted the words once to-day, and I make no apology for quoting them again. The Prime Minister said:
Unless public opinion and the judgment of the House were prepared to separate damage resulting from the fire of the enemy from all those other forms of war loss, and unless the House was prepared to draw the distinction very sharply between war damage by bomb and shell and other forms of loss which are incurred, we could not attempt to deal with this matter"—
the question of war damage—
otherwise, we should be opening up a field to which there would be no bounds."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th September, 1940, cols. 42–3, Vol. 365.]
As far as I know, the Government's view has not altered at all in that direction. We cannot look to direct Government assistance, though obviously the House can properly look to Government Kelp in other ways than financial help. My hon. Friend the Member for Balham and Tooting said that he made suggestions. Like other hon. Members, he referred to a fairer distribution of supplies, but he said "by the Government." I was not quite clear what he meant by referring to a fairer distribution of supplies by the Government. Does he really suggest that the Government should become the universal wholesaler, that they should take all the supplies from the manufacturers? It is an interesting suggestion for an hon. Member on this side of the House to make, but I do not think it is one which my hon. Friend, with his knowledge, thinks we could possibly adopt. I feel very strongly that we have in this country experienced traders in many directions, in the retail trade, the wholesale trade, and the manufacturing trade; and while, unfortunately, we have to interfere with them all too much, from my point of view I should be very sorry

to interefere with them one whit more than is absolutely necessary.

Mr. Doland: Then I am very sorry for the small retailers.

Captain Waterhouse: I hope it will be possible, as it has been, to find other means of dealing with this problem. For example, clothing coupons helped materially. Up till then, there was nothing to prevent any wholesaler or manufacturer making sales all to the larger firms, or to the multiple shops, or to the co-ops. Since then, the coupon system has directed the supplies to those shops and to those parts of the country from which the demand has come, and to that extent the coupon system has had a good effect on this problem. But it so happened that, unfortunately, towards the end of last winter we were short of supplies in a good many directions, and shopkeepers went in vain to their wholesalers, proffered their coupons, and were told that there were no supplies because the stuff was not available. My right hon. Friend, with my humble assistance, is doing his best to try and get a better state of production in these vital categories so that in future the shopkeeper, the retailer, will not go in vain to his wholesaler and that supplies will flow to where the demand is greatest.
If I may say so, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Holland-with-Boston (Lieutenant Butcher), who opened the Debate, put the matter extremely fairly, extremely temperately, and yet strongly. He referred to a large and rather unexpected measure of prosperity in the retail trade. I think that is quite true. I think many of us thought that their crisis would come sooner than it has come. The facts which are published from time to time in the "Board of Trade Journal" disclose an interesting state of affairs. If the index value for retail sales for 1937 is taken as 100 by value, for 1939 it was 102; for 1940, 107; and for 1941, 99. This shows that the decrease in the values of retail sales has been very small indeed—much smaller than I think many hon. Members would have thought. In volume, the sales are probably down by something like 40 per cent. My hon. and gallant Friend referred to the fact that the shelves are getting emptier. That is, of course, very true, and it is a very relevant factor to-day, but the shelves are still bearing


a very comfortable quantity of commodities. [Interruption.] The hon. Member says that he would like to see them. If he goes into most shops, he will find that, with the exception of a few lines, this country is very remarkably supplied, considering that we have been at war for some 33 or 34 months. In the figures from which I have quoted the stocks are given, too, and in January of this year, in values—I may say for emphasis that January is not a very good month to take, because there were this year no annual sales, which, of course, deplete the stock, and I am told that retailers placed their orders rather earlier than usual—in January, in values, there was 51 per cent. more stock in the retail shops than in the same month three years ago. If one takes the figure for March, which, I think, is a fair one—

Major Lyons: When my hon. and gallant Friend speaks of value, is he bearing in mind the differences in prices?

Captain Waterhouse: That is why I emphasised value. It is cash value of which I am speaking, and I now go on to give the figure for volume, which is much less. For March, the value of stocks was 30 per cent. up on March three years ago, but in volume the figure was about 30 per cent. down. I believe the House will realise, as I said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Balham and Tooting, that after nearly three years of war it is not an entirely unsatisfactory position to have our shelves stocked within 30 per cent. of the total volume of supplies which we had in times of peace and comparative prosperity. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) when he was making his point thought I turned round with disapproval. I can assure him that that is the last thing I would do to so distinguished a friend. He referred to the general feeling that small shopkeepers, especially small manufacturers, were unfairly hit. He was realty speaking of the small manufacturer in connection with the concentration scheme. I am afraid that that must always be the case. If one takes a very simple example of an industry with 10 firms which we have to concentrate clown to 50 per cent., and of those 10 firms two are large and eight are small, we would shut down presumably one large firm and four small firms. That

would be perfectly fair—half the large and half the small—but we should have four disgruntled small men and only one disgruntled big man. I am afraid we cannot avoid this feeling that the small man is unfairly hit. All we can do is to assure ourselves that, so far as is in our power, we are doing nothing which will make his life more miserable.

Mr. Spens: With great respect, I do not accept the illustration. I am sure it is much more likely that the eight small people would be shut down and the two large people left.

Captain Waterhouse: If my hon. and learned Friend had had the experience I have had with the Board of Trade, he would know that that is far from the case. The hon. Member for Southampton (Dr. Thomas) raised a question about N.A.A.F.I. "I could not understand what was his grouse. Did I understand him to say that we were allowing too many supplies to go to N.A.A.F.I.?

Dr. Thomas: I said that N.A.A.F.I. has a bigger clientele as people are called up, and I point out that N.A.A.F.I., generally, is another nail in the coffin of the small trader.

Captain Waterhouse: As against that, there is the happy fact that the spending power of the country is a great deal larger than it has been, and that, I think, has fully counteracted the effect of several millions spending a proportion, and only a proportion, with N.A.A.F.I. Not all soldiers go to N.A.A.F.I., and sometimes to our consternation they buy commodities which are in short supply from outside. Naturally I cannot say anything to anticipate the proposals of the Committee, even if I knew what they were. I understand that the Committee are now completing their labours and that before long, whether it is days or weeks I am not sure, my right hon. Friend will be in possession of their Report. No doubt the House will then ask that it should be debated. We are fully aware of the difficulties of this problem, and we feel quite definitely that, in spite of the difficulties and in spite of the hardships which may be and are being inflicted, it is the Board's first duty to ensure that available supplies of essential goods are fairly distributed among the public. That, clearly, is our first task, and, having done that, we want to see that they are fairly


distributed, in so far as it is possible, among the distributors. I should like to say that we have found the attitude of the wholesalers most helpful when we have approached them about complaints from Members of Parliament and others that in certain directions supplies are not coming forward. The other day the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Reed) wrote to us stating that there was not a cup or saucer in Exeter. We got in touch with the wholesalers and found, through our area distribution officer, a wholesaler who had a stock, not a large stock, of pottery available in that area, and by next day we were able to send a certain supply down. That, I think, my hon. Friend the Member for Balham and Tooting will agree is a good deal more agreeable than trying to commandeer the whole of the wholesalers' trade.

Mr. Doland: The Government did take action in that respect.

Captain Waterhouse: The Government used their benign powers of persuasion on this reasonable body of people and got what they wanted. I think, when possible, that is a more comfortable way for the Government to act Inequalities are inevitable in any scheme, and we have to face up to that. Firms in one district are far worse off than firms in another district. Those Members who represent the East coast towns and South coast towns have a very different problem confronting their traders from those who represent the great Midland industrial towns. We cannot get equality, however hard we try. All we can get, and all we are trying to get, is the minimum of hardship in these very difficult times, and to spread a feeling that, at least, we are doing our best to see that traders, small and large alike, are having a fair deal as far as the Government can deal with the matter at all.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Might I put this question? The Minister opened his speech by saying that this is not a new problem but an old one. I feel he may have thereby given the impression that he does not appreciate that the war-time problems, coming on top of many difficult years in the past, have really made the position of small retailers very desperate. Will he say something to remove any possible doubt on that, in that he does realise that war-time

difficulties, coming on top of others, have brought this matter to a crisis?

Captain Waterhouse: The hon. Member who raised the point referred to the fact that there was this tendency, but there is no doubt in our minds that it has been tremendously accentuated as a result of the war.

MINISTRY OF WORKS AND BUILDINGS.

Mr. Bossom: I should not take up the time of the House on the matter of sending a representative of the Ministry of Works and Buildings to America unless I was absolutely convinced that the plan, as proposed, is impracticable and may create a serious situation. The Department itself was established in October, 1940, with the intention of looking after post-war building preparations, and that largely means the providing of employment for people after the war. To succeed in this without too much waste or too much delay, and to give the best to the nation, would require a thorough review to be made of the many phases of the building industry if we are to avoid a repetition of the wastes and troubles which have occurred in connection with war-time building. After watching and waiting for over a year to see some signs of a comprehensive programme being issued by the Ministry, I started a series of carefully-thought-out Questions. As they began to be answered by the Parliamentary Secretary they certainly disclosed at least a great slowness in action, if not also an absence of technical knowledge of a very widespread nature.
When the war ends it will need at least a year and a half to two years of actual preparatory work if we are to be able to start building with good plans, good laws and a good building system all ready in time. There should be included in the preparatory work done in that year and a half a real programme of procedure in which details must be worked out and decided upon. Laws have to be brought to the House and passed to enable these new decisions to be carried out, and, after that has been done, education and distribution of the information that has been gained have to be carried to the industry through our schools, universities, trade unions, offices, shops and even local authorities. All this work must be well


in hand before owners or public authorities or architects can start designing the post-war buildings which will be required, for these are the vehicles which will give work to the people when the peace time comes. In July last the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Buckrose (Major Braithwaite) asked a Question about this American investigation. In September a number of technical questions were raised, and the Minister promised that he would have them examined by his committee, and it was conceded that they would add to efficiency and aid in reducing the cost of building work after the war, but apparently no action was taken. In December the United States came into the war. In April of this year it was announced that one man only was going to the United States, and he was, in the words of the Minister, "to study the training and education, both of operatives and managements in the building industry." He was also instructed to make a preliminary examination into the methods of standardisation and any other new development. That is a colossal task. He was to be allowed only eight weeks in which to do it. Anyone looking at that programme, will concede right away that it is totally impossible for anyone to handle such a vast amount of investigation in such a very short time.
Again, as to the question of education, I believe everyone will agree that it is useless to study education unless you study at the same time the result of that education, what it does, what happens to the people who have had it and where it leads them. It seems to me that the Ministry of Works and Buildings has not fully comprehended all the great differences between this country and the United States. There are tremendous differences which must be taken into account. When a man has to go and study the systems of education, if he is not fully conversant with those differences, it will be very hard for him. For instance, take climatic conditions. The United States climate is dry and there is a lot of sunlight. Here the climate is damp and often sunless. This may not seem important but in handling building materials, it makes all the difference in the world. The system of work is entirely dissimilar and the temperament of the people is entirely different. The life desired for the buildings too is entirely different. Their

buildings are often only intended to last for a short time. Here we often expect our buildings to last for a century. In the United States when a building is going to be put up or a great development made, it becomes a team operation, quite different from anything in this country. The owner, architect, builder, foreman and operative all work together and all have fairly full knowledge of each other's desires. In this country you would think you were handling special war-time secrets if you want to find out what an architect or owner is going to do.
That introduces a difficult situation for anyone who is going to investigate in the United States for the first time. I have no doubt that this gentleman is a careful, conscientious investigator—I have never met him—but it is the first time he has been to America. He is going in a hurry, he has just eight weeks in which to review all this vast building education problem and he is very liable to get a very mixed and often a wrong impression. The whole subject of education in the building industry is interwoven. You cannot pick it to pieces and study one little piece without considering its full relations to all the rest. It is vitally important that, when the subject is considered, every bit of the studying that the architect makes, the builder makes, the operative makes or the owner makes for that matter, is considered at one time, and in this instance it has all to be done by one man in eight weeks. There are very many great centres of education in the architectural and building industry of America and no one can bring back a reasonable report without having gone at least to Columbia University and seen what they are doing, to Pennsylvania, and to Harvard. In Chicago they teach an entirely different range of subjects. After the war there is no doubt that we are going to have a lot more girls and women in architectural and building offices, so the Middle-Western Universities which are coeducational must also be visited. Then he has to go to Leland Stanford University in California and to Texas if he wants to know what is being done in some of the most modern methods of construction.
All these Universities teach specialised subjects and vary a good deal, and how is one man to investigate them all in such a short time? He will have to see how the students apply their studies when they go into offices and out into the


world. The offices in the United States are much larger than ours over here and the work is more sectionalised than anything in this country. The contractors in America are often more like financial advisers and this makes them different from those in the same position in this country. If this British Visitor to the United States is to make any comprehensive survey and make a study that will help us in our work after the war, he will have to look at the work, training and education of architects, designers, foremen and operatives. He will have to investigate the work of the managers, but the manager in America is a different person from anyone we have in this country. We have no parallel to him at all. I do not know whether the Ministry of Works and Buildings are acquainted with that fact. Those who have been in this House or the old Chamber will certainly say that we ought to learn something about ventilation. In America they can teach us a lot. In regard to plumbing, it is illegal in many towns in this country to do really modern plumbing. Fire protection is a subject on which we can learn a lot for we disagree even on two sides of one road in London. We must have more knowledge of these things. The heating in the small house in America is infinitely further advanced than in this country. The way they treat oil is an example. One can go into a bedroom and turn a switch; the oil in a furnace in the basement will be turned on, and in 20 minutes the house will be at any temperature that is wanted. We cannot do that anywhere in this country.
Concrete, steel, hollow-tile work, plastics, metal and glass must all form part of the educational study of building in America, if we are to get full benefit from the review, but they differ materially from British practice. There are relatively only the bits and pieces that go into forming a building. What about the buildings themselves? I will not suggest studying sky-scrapers because we do not need them here, but there is need to study the standardisation they brought into being. Then there are hospitals, schools, hotels, office buildings and cinemas that should be studied, besides all the numerous gadgets that are put into buildings, many of which we do not use or do not want to use. A careful study will be needed, however, to find

out those we want and those we do not want. We are to-day worried about our coal production. Had we made use of insulating materials and insulating our windows as they have done on the other side it might have been possible to save anything from 15 to 20 per cent. of our coal consumption. America claims that she has saved about 30 per cent. by introducing insulating materials and protection round windows. That is a subject which ought to be looked into with great care if we are to use our coal to the utmost advantage. No preliminary review of this sort that is made in eight weeks will be of much value unless it takes all these details into account.
All the various phases of the architectural profession and the building industry need comprehensive review. Again, architectural drawings and specifications are prepared in a different way in America from the way we prepare them here. There is the question, too, of what is known as quantities, about which we have heard so much in this House in connection with war-time building programme costs. They do not use them at all in America, yet every building that is started here has most elaborate quantities. Then the forms of contract and sub-contracts are different in the two countries and a casual review of these arrangements is liable to be misleading. In regard to supervision and expediting, we all remember how this was discussed when we were building the militia camps.
The system of the time and progress schedule is another matter of which, we have heard from the Treasury bench, we are not yet ready to make use. It is conceded both on this side of the Atlantic and the other that if that system were properly applied the same building could be built in Britain or the United States at the same cost, though the bricklayer in America would get five times the weekly wage that is paid in England and the plumber and the carpenter would get 3½ times the wage, and the American building would be completed in about two-thirds of the time required for its British counterpart. That system is of such tremendous importance that it ought to be investigated with great thoroughness. Again, we have not made use of mechanical aids to building to anything like the extent it has been used abroad. I could continue in this way, calling attention to differences, but I am not going to take


up any more of the time of the House in doing so.
I think it is an unfortunate waste of time and of public money to send a man across the Atlantic to make a journey of not less than 15,000 miles, all to be done in eight weeks, to attempt to cover such a wide field of investigation, as has been done in this case. It is an impossible task for any man. Even if he had lived there for 50 years it would be quite impossible for him to do all that he has been asked to do in the allotted time. I have not attempted to touch on the legal differences, which are abnormal. In America there are systems of permits such as we do not have here. Our permits are so conflicting that we ought to investigate what is done there. It is no good sending an investigator to America just to run into university classes and to run into offices without following up what he finds. He cannot get very much in that way. Neither can the Minister by setting up lots of committees expect they will give him results unless they know the programme before them. Satisfactory results for building industry education will only be obtained by looking into this whole question, which is a highly technical one, in a thorough way. No casual investigation made by a man sent over the ocean by himself at this time will in my judgment justify itself.
I think the Ministry of Works and Buildings would be very wise if they would carry out their own suggestion of sending over a comprehensive committee to go thoroughly into this whole matter in all its phases. The American people are busy with the war and it is not fair to ask them to spare time for one man who is investigating a subject which they know he cannot cover in the allotted time. I sincerely hope the Ministry will take up this subject seriously and not forget their own recommendation to send over quickly a full representative committee embracing men representing the labour side, the material side, the engineering side and the architectural side, in fact all the branches of the industry concerned, and secure by this means a really useful report, because if such work is done properly, we can save hundreds of millions when we come to undertake all our post-war building projects, the total cost of which will unquestionably be vastly more than we have ever spent upon such works in the past.

Major Lyons: This matter was brought up in answer to a Question which I put to the Minister some two weeks ago. I am sure the whole House is grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this question again, speaking as he does with very great authority. If I do not follow him now in this matter it is not because my interest is any less or that I desire to retract the criticism which I made about this projected trip, which seems to me a great waste of time and effort and likely to fulfil no real purpose.
In the few minutes at my disposal I should like to raise a matter which was dealt with at Question time, and I gave notice that if time permitted I would raise it again. Yesterday, I asked a Question in reference to the appointment of a gentleman as deputy secretary in the Planning Department of the Ministry. It must not be thought that I make any suggestion of any sort or kind against the gentleman concerned. I do not, but I have a great deal of criticism to make about the way in which the appointment was made and about what appears to be the refusal to give the House of Commons information about this extraordinary new departure. Apparently a complaint was made of the criticism which I made about other answers which were given to me, and my use of figures and facts which he gave. Whether that criticism was right or not, the House will be able to judge. I will read now the answer which my hon. Friend gave to me yesterday about the appointment of Mr. Lawrence Neal. He said:
Mr. Lawrence Neal has been appointed Deputy Secretary in the Planning Department of the Ministry at a salary of £2,000 a year. It was agreed that he should continue to devote not more than one day a week to the affairs of his firm, Daniel Neal and Sons Limited. The appointment was made by selection. The work of the Sea Fish Commission, of which Mr. Neal was a member, came to an end in 1936, but Mr. Neal will continue for a short time to be a member of the Retail Trade Committee which was appointed by the then President of the Board of Trade in May, 1941, in order to assist in the preparation of that Committee's Third Interim Report.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th May, 1942; col. 214, Vol. 380.]
I asked him how many candidates were chosen for the selection, by whom the selections were made, whether the appointment was advertised, and whether the Central Register was used, and I further asked how the candidates were chosen for the interview. To those questions I received no answer.
This is an extraordinary new departure. The way in which the Ministry of Works and Buildings makes its appointments and continues to do so is subject to a good deal of criticism inside and outside the House. The gentleman in question is the owner of a firm of suppliers of children's clothing. I make no suggestion of any sort or kind about him, but as managing director or owner of this firm he is suddenly put in the position of a civil servant in a high place and granted a salary of some £2,000 per annum for it. It is a novelty to say that such a gentleman can go about the business of his firm on one day a week. That is a proposition, so far as I understand, entirely opposed to all the established principles of the Civil Service and certainly to the established principles of a civil servant in a position carrying a salary of £2,000 a year.
How was this done? Who decided that this appointment was necessary? Who decided to go outside the Civil Service and into the retail shops to appoint this particular gentleman? Do not let it be said that I am making an attack upon this gentleman. I am doing no such thing. I do not know the gentleman, and I have not the slightest reason to attack him in any shape or form. I desire to make no suggestion about him. I attack the principle that the Civil Service has been left aside and the retail trade has been approached and that a gentleman from the retail trade has been brought into the Civil Service in conditions entirely different from anything known inside the Civil Service. My hon. friend said that the appointment was made by selection. Selection of whom?

Mr. Groves: And by whom?

Major Lyons: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. From whom and by whom was the selection made? If it was from a number of persons, there must have been names that were being considered. We hear a lot in this House about the Central Register, but in this case the Central Register was not used. I believe that many Government Departments do not consult the Central Register, but here we know that it was not consulted. My hon. Friend said that it was not made from the Central Register or as a result of advertisement, but that it was made by the Minister. How did the Minister get the names? Were the names on a panel, and

were there other names besides those from retail industry who were approached? What is the reason for making an appointment of this nature, unprecedented as I think it is?
I ask these questions, and I hope I shall get an answer, because there is a good deal of concern in this House and outside at the appointments made by this particular Minister. One more word before I sit down. If I have to leave the House before this Debate finishes, I hope that my hon. Friend will not take it as an act of discourtesy either to himself or to his colleagues.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: I intervene for a moment because I was present at Question time yesterday and because I happen to know the person concerned in this question. He is in fact a personal friend of very long standing.

It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Adamson.]

Mr. Lindsay: I am very glad therefore that my hon. and gallant Friend has made it quite clear that what he says contains no personal reflection at all upon him.

Major Lyons: None whatever.

Mr. Lindsay: I wish to protest, however, against the way in which people's names are brought in, particularly during Questions, without any sort of inquiry beforehand. I know that my hon. and gallant Friend will say that he is attacking a principle, but in the process of doing that, individuals' names are inevitably involved. When I saw the Question, and a reference to the Deep Sea Fish Committee, I began to wonder, because Mr. Neal was on this committee several years ago. He has been giving an enormous amount of time during recent months to a committee connected with retail trade. I have often visited him, and I know that he has often been up all night doing this particular job. When I saw that he was appointed to this new post, I said to my hon. Friend, "You are lucky, because he is in my opinion one of the ablest men of my generation." The point I wish to raise


is, Is it still necessary when appointing a person to a position of this kind to issue advertisements and invite applications? I put to myself the question, Suppose that while at the Board of Education I wanted somebody with special knowledge to be paid chairman of a committee, in connection with youth or something like that. I should consider it my business, knowing roughly who was in the field to make the best selection, and I do not consider that it would be necessary to advertise. It will be found that in regard to many special posts Ministers and members of the War Cabinet have had it brought to their notice that So-and-so was the best man for a particular job. Naturally they make investigations, but they have not advertised. I know my hon. and gallant Friend means no personal reflection on this gentleman, but I would like to ask whether it is a new principle that a person does some work outside and some work inside a Ministry in time of war.

Major Lyons: At £2,000 a year?

Mr. Lindsay: I am not concerned with the salary. I presume it is in relation to what he was earning before. There have been a number of such appointments for specific jobs, and to say that they should go through the machinery suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend is in itself a novel precedent. As far as this particular Ministry is concerned, I know nothing about it. I have heard criticisms from time to time—indeed I rather agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom) on his particular point—but I always thought that my hon. and gallant Friend was very anxious that we should introduce able business men, especially in cases when civil servants are forced to deal with matters falling outside the usual course of their work. In that case Mr. Neal's normal trade has no connection with the industries involved in Works and Buildings. It is a question of choosing a man of first-class business experience, and I congratulate the Ministry on finding a man of such integrity and ability.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings (Mr. Henry Strauss): The subject raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom) falls within the province

of my colleague, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, with whom, indeed, my hon. Friend has been in correspondence on the matter. My colleague regrets that he cannot be in the House to-day and has asked me to take his place on this occasion. May I say to the hon. and gallant Member for East Leicester (Major Lyons), who explained that he could not stay for my reply, that we know there is no discourtesy in his leaving the House? To turn to the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone, I cannot help thinking that his complaint is based on a misapprehension. The work in connection with which Mr. G. H. Jellicoe, F.R.I.B.A., a part-time member of the staff of my Ministry, is visiting the United States is not an alternative to, nor does it in any way prejudice or conflict with, the proposal to send out at a later date a representative delegation to the United Stales to make a comprehensive study of building development and practice in that country. I gather that my hon. Friend would be in favour of such a delegation and thinks that it ought to go now. My Noble Friend and his advisers take a different view and consider that the time for such a delegation has not yet come.
That does not mean that there is not an immediate need for the far more limited task on which Mr. Jellicoe is now engaged. As the House is aware, my Noble Friend is making a close study of the building industry and methods of expanding it to meet our needs after the war. He desires to have early information, which is not now available in this country, regarding training and education both of operatives and management in the building industry in the United States. Mr. Jellicoe is eminently fitted to perform the task of obtaining this information. He is a member of the Education Committee of the Royal Institute of British Architects, a former head of the school of architecture of the Architectural Association, and the chairman of the Housing Group of the R.I.B.A. Reconstruction Committee. Mr. Jellicoe's visit is welcomed on the other side of the Atlantic. It is supported by the Central Council for Works and Buildings, and Mr. Jellicoe himself is confident that he will be long enough in the United States to do useful work and to obtain the information for which he is being sent. My hon. Friend's fear that he is being


given a task requiring a far longer visit is unfounded. Mr. Jellicoe has been expressly instructed that, if it is necessary for him to devote the whole of his time to the question of education and training, he is to do so, and not to concern himself with any of the other matters which have been mentioned. I am convinced that my hon. Friend's objections to this visit are unfounded.

Mr. Bossom: Would my hon. Friend mind explaining what is meant by education and how you are to segregate a tiny piece of education from the whole education needed for the building industry?

Mr. Strauss: I do not intend to do that, because another hon. Member, who has waited in the House all day, wishes to raise another subject, and I do not intend to give an essay on education or the building industry, but to reply to the points which have been raised as clearly and as briefly as possible so as to make way for him. I believe that, when my hon. Friend realises that the despatch later of a more comprehensive delegation is in no way prejudiced, he will withdraw his objections and share our hopes. In any event, while we welcome his advice, my Noble Friend is determined to get the information which he requires, and which can only be obtained by a personal visit, and Mr. Jellicoe, who is admirably qualified for the task, is now engaged in obtaining it.
Let me turn now to the different matter raised by the hon. and gallant Member for East Leicester (Major Lyons). The burden of his complaint is that no steps were taken, by advertisement or otherwise, to secure an adequate number of candidates for the post to which Mr. Neal has been appointed. The House will, I think, agree that advertising such a post would not have produced any useful result. Posts in Government Departments can often be filled from the Central Register, but the Select Committee on National Expenditure recognised, in their 8th Report, published in June, 1940, that there were two exceptions to the rule; and the present case falls within the second exception,
where the post to be filled is of a character requiring special qualifications and for which there is a limited field of choice.

It was essential that the man to be appointed should be familiar with Government methods and Government Departments, and that he should also have administrative experience. No suitable permanent civil servant qualified for the post could be spared from the work on which he was already engaged, and the post was one where it was no disadvantage, and quite possibly some advantage, that a capable man from outside the regular Civil Service should be appointed. My Noble Friend and his predecessor considered a number of names, but in present circumstances there was a limited field of persons who were both suitable and available. Many who would otherwise have been suitable could not be spared from the work on which they were already engaged. The Government work on which Mr. Neal was engaged at the time, namely the Retail Trade Committee of the Board of Trade, was soon coming to an end, though the Board of Trade did not feel able to release him altogether, and, as I told the hon. and gallant Member in answer to his question, Mr. Neal will continue for a short time to be a member of that committee, in order to assist in the preparation of their third Interim Report.
Mr. Neal had worked in or with Government Departments for a number of years. He served, as the House knows, on the Sea Fish Commission, which sat under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Supply, and my Noble Friend found in Mr. Neal a man of ability, of whose work for Government Departments Ministerial colleagues had had experience for a number of years. It would surely be unreasonable to require of a man in Mr. Neal's position that he should not be allowed to devote any time at all to the affairs of his Company, and it is recognised in war-time that persons brought in from outside the Civil Service may be allowed some facilities for attending to their business. There is, of course, no question whatever that the Government have the first call on his time, and that the period, not exceeding one day a week, which he can devote to his own business must be fitted in to suit the requirements of his post. My Noble Friend was satisfied that he had made the best choice in the public interest, and Mr. Neal is proving to have the necessary qualifications for the post.

LONDON WHOLESALE MEAT SUPPLY ASSOCIATION.

Mr. Robertson: A few days ago I asked my right hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food
whether he will reconsider his decision to reject the application for membership of the London Wholesale Meat Supply Association, which was not made timeously, of 16 south of Scotland mutton exporters, 14 of whom exclusively supplied Smithfield Market with about 700,000 carcases per annum, having regard to the financial hardship imposed on them, and to the inadequate advertisement of the date on which applications closed?
My right hon. and gallant Friend replied, stating that
the application for membership of the London Wholesale Meat Supply Association by the firms in question has been very carefully considered and the decision to reject the application was reached only after exhaustive inquiry. I myself have personally investigated the facts and am satisfied that the decision reached was justified and that the failure to make timeous application cannot be ascribed to inadequate advertisement of the date on which applications closed. In these circumstances, I am not prepared to reconsider the decision.
I asked:
Is it not the case that these men are entitled to membership of the London association, and is it not also a fact that the only newspaper in which the closing date was advertised was the "Daily Telegraph,' and that does not circulate in Scotland?
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food went on to say:
The original notice which warned wholesale butchers that these Meat Supply Associations would be set up appeared widely in July, 1939, again in September, 1939, and, I believe, in. January, 1940. The closing date for London was February, 1941, so they had well over a year, nearly 18 months, during which they should have been aware that application was necessary. The fact that the closing date for the London Association was only in the 'Daily Telegraph' does not affect the case, because two members of the Scottish Meat Exporters' Association applied to a Scottish Association and were admitted."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th May, 1942, cols. 1744–45, Vol. 379.]
I expressed dissatisfaction with that answer, and I am raising the matter now at the first opportunity. Fourteen of the 16 men exclusively supplied the London market, and two of them supplied the Glasgow market as well. They were very highly skilled men, and this trade in shipping lamb and mutton to London had been built up over a number of years. The men travelled the markets, picking selected livestock suitable for the specialised

London trade and, as I stated in the Question, they actually sent, in the two years before the war, 700,000 carcases out of a total of 1,200,000 carcases sent to the wholesale market in London. These 16 men supplied seven-twelfths of the total mutton and lamb that went into London from Scotland. They were not merely buyers of livestock, passing it on as they got it. They worked at it. They skinned it and passed on the skins and pelts to the fellmongers, who in turn dealt with them. They dressed the carcases, removing offal, heads and trotters and packing them separately and shipping them in refrigerated containers on night trains to London. Each had a private slaughter house, with a staff of trained men. That was the trade they did before the war and the goodwill that they built up
When war broke out the Food Ministry took over the trade and controlled prices, but they did not take over livestock control. They closed Smithfield Market and set up a number of meat depots, and at the same time created the London Wholesale Meat Supply Association, a company limited by guarantee. They admitted all the salesmen in the London market to membership of that company. They gave the company an income by allowing it a commission on the meat sold by these meat depots, and, after payment of the expenses, they divided the difference among those salesmen in the London markets who had been dispossessed of their private trading. I have no fault to find with that. That position went on until January, 1940, and during that period, from the outbreak of war, these 16 South of Scotland senders, whose case I am putting, shipped their mutton and lamb to these depots situated on the perimeter of London, controlled and staffed by the members of the London Wholesale Meat Supply Association. Round about January, 1940, when this Order came in, the Ministry of Food were doing the work hitherto done by the 16 exporters. They were automatically put out of business. They were not alone in that. About that time many people were being put out of business. The Ministry threw them a few crumbs in the form of a slaughtering contract, which was not adequate compensation for the loss of the trade which they had built up.
Incidentally, I understand that their commission upon the mutton and lamb


which they sent to the London market between September, 1939, and January, 1940, amounted to £50,000. At some later date they learned from the Ministry of Food area livestock agent in Scotland—an official of the Ministry of Food—that they were entitled to membership of the London Wholesale Meat Supply Association. It is very easy to understand that a change had taken place, because on the outbreak of war, when the businesses of the salesmen in the London market were interfered with, the 16 men and all the other mutton and lamb shippers were allowed to carry on as they always had done. But when the mutton and lamb shipping businesses were taken over, these men were put out of business, and they should be compensated. My right hon. and gallant Friend said that they should have applied to the Scottish Association. What right had they to apply to the Scottish Association? Their trade was with London. Two men who did have some trade in Glasgow applied for membership in September, 1939, because of the advertisement in September, 1939, to which my right hon. and gallant Friend referred, and they were refused. In October, 1941, well over a year later, without having made any application at all, they were suddenly admitted. It seems to me that this is a most wrongful situation. It was brought last November to the notice of the Minister of Food, whose attention was drawn to an article of association of this company which reads:
No individual or Company shall be eligible for membership, either as a full member or as an associate member, unless such individual or Company has made a formal application for membership at a date not later than 22nd February, 1941, provided that the Minister may in any case direct the Asssociation by notice in writing that an applicant shall be deemed to be eligible for membership notwithstanding "that such applicant has not made a formal application for membership before that date.
In other words, although the closing date was fixed for applications to be made for membership to this London Wholesale Meat Supply Association, it was advertised in only one newspaper, the "Daily Telegraph"—a great journal, but no one would suggest that it circulates in Scotland. The men whom I represent did not see it. It was also in the "Meat Trades Journal" and the "Farmer and Stockbreeder," but these, also, do not circulate

in Scotland. We have great journals in Scotland like the "Glasgow Herald" and the "Scotsman." The "Scottish Farmer" is our agricultural paper, but in none of them did this advertisement appear. Yet, when application was made to Lord Woolton, the amazing reply was given that if these 16 men were admitted, many others would have to be admitted. But if they have just claims, why should not they be let in? Would it not have been right for these 16 men, who had carried on this extensive trade—the largest in Great Britain—to expect the Ministry of Food or its agents, the London Wholesale Meat Supply Association, to write to each one of them and say, "Now we have put you out of business we have created a machine in this company to provide you with an income"? In this connection these London agents, who are so freely admitted into membership are earning £800 or £900 a year for sitting at home, or, if they are working for the Wholesale Meat Supply Association, are receiving salaries in addition to this out of the moneys earned by the men for whom I am speaking to-day. It is an absolutely outrageous situation. I have been pressed for time. I had hoped that I should have been able to raise this matter an hour earlier. I have had to rush my statement of the case in an impossible way; but I hope I have conveyed to the House a situation which will call for their immediate support. The House is the highest court in the land, and it will be most regrettable if these men are compelled to go into a court of law to get the justice which undoubtedly they deserve.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Major Lloyd George): I am extremely sorry that we have not more time in which to discuss this important matter, which is one over which I, personally, have taken a very great deal of trouble. I have gone into all the facts of the case, and I will briefly state the reasons why we have not been able to admit these wholesalers to membership. There is no question—it is admitted—that their applications were late, and as far as I can gather, the only reason given for that is that certain newspapers do not circulate in Scotland. It is an interesting fact that two of the 16 did apply for membership of the Scottish Association, and therefore, there cannot


have been ignorance of the necessity for all wholesalers to apply for membership of wholesale associations. As I told my hon. Friend in answer to his Question, in July, 1939, it was stated that, as part of the defence plans of this country, the Department were anxious to obtain lists of all meat wholesalers who might be eligible for membership of such associations, and accordingly invited all wholesalers of meat to submit their names to one or more Area Wholesale Meat Supply (Defence) Committees. The addresses of these Committees were given, and if there was any doubt in anybody's mind as to which association to apply for membership, he was to apply to the head office of the Ministry of Food. This announcement appeared in every large newspaper in Scotland, and in some of the weekly farmers' newspapers as well.

Mr. Robertson: Not by advertisement, but as an article.

Major Lloyd George: As an announcement. Again, in September, 1939, the announcement was repeated, referring to the original Press notice, and saying:
In order that the association may be formed without delay, it is essential that the names of all wholesalers should be included in the lists now.
That was in September, 1939. In January, 1940, the following extremely important statement appeared:
After midnight of 15th January, individual meat wholesalers will cease for the present to trade on their own account.
Will hon. Members observe the date of that—15th January, 1940? The closing date for the London Association was 22nd February, 1941, so that there was a period of about 13 months in which they could apply after the notice stating that they would cease to act as individual wholesalers from that time. I am asked to believe that these gentlemen are peculiarly ignorant of the conditions that obtained in London. I find it extremely difficult to believe that anybody doing the business which they were doing—and if I may say so without offence, coming from that side of the Border—and having a turnover of over £700,000 a year, with

their own agents in London getting a commission of £50,000, knowing that after 15th January, 1940, they could not deal as individuals in this particular trade, did not take some steps, even if they had not seen any announcement, which I find it hard to believe, because two of them did apply. And if the others had applied to the Scottish Association, it would not have made the slightest difference, because either they would have been accepted or told to make application to the London Association.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: Were the two accepted?

Major Lloyd George: Yes.

Mr. Baxter: So the 16 would have been?

Major Lloyd George: Yes, if they had applied, either to the Scottish Association or the London Association. But they cannot plead ignorance—because that is the only reason for their not applying in time—of whether they should apply to London or Scotland. There can be no question of opening the matter again, because if we did so we would have to open it for every person who has given the same reason for not applying. We cannot get the associations on to a proper basis unless there is some finality.

Mr. Maxton: It is a close corporation.

Major Lloyd George: There is no "close corporation" when there is 18 months' notice for every individual who cares to come in. You have to decide at some time. Even in the case of nomination day you cannot go beyond that. You have to decide on some date, and this date was widely advertised. Eighteen months' notice was given, and they could quite easily have put in applications if they had wished.

It being the hour appointed for the Adjournment of the House, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order, till Tuesday, 2nd June, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of 20th May.